Blakley v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation et al

Filing 35

ORDER cancelling the trial currently set for April 13, 2010: Plaintiff's discovery requests are quashed in their entirety and plaintiff is directed to submit pared-down discovery requests by February 10, 2010; this Order is being sent to plaintiff by fax, CM/ECF and by regular mail; and holding in abeyance defendant's request to dismiss this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 1/19/10. (bkp) Modified on 1/20/2010 to correct typographical error (jct).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RELENTHIS BLAKLEY v. 4:08CV04120-WRW DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORP. ORDER

Pending is Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 29). Plaintiff has not responded. I find and order as follows: 1. Plaintiff's lawyer advised my staff today that he had never received Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order and that he has not received my letter of January 13, 2010, a copy of which is attached. This letter was sent to Plaintiff's counsel by fax and also filed on the CM/ECF docketing system. While I will not make a finding in this regard, it is hard to understand how Plaintiff's counsel could have failed to receive this letter, or Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order. 2. The trial, which is currently set for April 13, 2010, is cancelled, and will be reset in due course. 3. A new scheduling order will be issued in due course. 4. Plaintiff's discovery requests are QUASHED in their entirety, and Plaintiff's counsel is directed to file a new rifle-shot* set of discovery requests, if he is to file any at all.

*spare and to the point, only.

1

5. Plaintiff has until Wednesday, February 10, 2010, to submit his pared-down discovery requests. 6. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to notify my office when he receives this Order. This Order is being sent to Plaintiff by fax, CM/ECF, and by regular mail. 7. If Plaintiff's counsel has any objections to the above, he may request a conference call, if such a request is done forthwith. 8. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to check his facsimile receiving machine, and to check his computer to make sure that it is receiving CM/ECF notices. 9. Defendant's request to dismiss this case with prejudice is HELD IN ABEYANCE. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2010.

/s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM D444 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 [phone] Facsimile [phone]

January 13, 2010 Mr. Okon J. Usoro P.C. 12000 Westheimer Road Suite 300 Houston, TX 77077 Re: Blakley v. Schlumberger, 4:08-cv-04120-WRW. Dear Mr. Usoro: I will not pre-judge Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 29), but it does appear to me that you are over-eggin' the puddin' with your discovery requests. Before I do any appreciable work on the project, please "meet and confer" (you may do it by telephone, but doing it is mandatory) with opposing counsel before noon, Central Standard Time, next Tuesday, January 19, 2010; and immediately advise me of the results of your "meet and confer" efforts by email or fax, by noon of that afternoon. I expect genuine, bonafide, real, good-faith,* efforts to resolve the discovery dispute. If it is not resolved by noon of next Tuesday, we will have an on-the-record telephone conference at 4:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, Tuesday, January 19, 2010. I expect that the telephone conference will be short, and I would expect my rulings to be likewise. I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Record *please excuse the verbosity and redundancies, but I want to make sure I am understood.

3