ANAZONWU et al v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC et al

Filing 64

ORDER -GRANTED 60 Motion for Reconsideration. The order of dismissal (doc #58) is hereby VACATED. This action shall be REINSTATED to the active docket. This matter shall be referred to the magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing and/or s uch other proceedings as are required to determine whether plaintiffs' counsel has in fact located and made contact with plaintiffs as ordered, determine the sufficiency of the discovery responses and expert designations, develop a proposed discovery plan for this case, and to enter a report and recommendation on the findings . Signed by Judge M CASEY RODGERS. (tnc, Pensacola)

Download PDF
ANAZONWU et al v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC et al Doc. 64 Case 3:05-cv-00147-MCR-EMT Document 64 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION DEBRA ANAZONWU, at al., Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, et al., Defendants. _____________________________/ ORDER By order entered March 30, 2006, this action was dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs' failure to comply with this court's February 22, 2006, order directing Plaintiffs' counsel to locate Plaintiffs and provide responses to Defendant's discovery requests and designate experts within thirty (30) days. (See docs. 45, 58). Plaintiffs' counsel has now filed a motion to reconsider (doc. 60) advising that he had complied with the February 22, 2006, order within the allotted thirty day period. Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs' motion (doc. 61) and Plaintiffs have filed a reply (doc. 62). Although Plaintiffs' counsel filed no notice of compliance with the court's order of February 22, 20061, the attachments to the pending motion suggest that some timely effort to comply had been made; therefore, it appears appropriate at this time to grant Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and vacate the order of dismissal. The court does, however, question the extent of compliance by Plaintiffs' counsel and Case No. 3:05cv147/MCR/EMT The court will acknowledge that the February 22, 2006, order did not specifically require the filing o f a notice of compliance; however, given the severe consequence of dismissal for failure to comply such n o t i c e wou l d see m prud e n t . 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:05-cv-00147-MCR-EMT Document 64 Filed 03/31/2006 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 shall refer this matter to the magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing and/or such other proceedings as are required to determine whether Plaintiffs' counsel has in fact located and made contact with Plaintiffs as ordered, determine the sufficiency of the discovery responses and expert designations, develop a proposed discovery plan for this case,2 and to enter a report and recommendation on the findings. Therefore, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice (doc. 60) is GRANTED and the Order of dismissal (doc. 58) is hereby VACATED. This action shall be REINSTATED to the active docket. 2. This matter shall be referred to the magistrate judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing and/or such other proceedings as are required to determine whether Plaintiffs' counsel has in fact located and made contact with Plaintiffs as ordered, determine the sufficiency of the discovery responses and expert designations, develop a proposed discovery plan for this case, and to enter a report and recommendation on the findings. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2006. s/ M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Up on req ue st b y Plaintiffs' counsel, the discovery and expert disclosure deadlines in this case were e x t e n d e d forty-five (45) days. Subsequently, again upon Plaintiffs' request, a stay of thirty (30) days was g r a n te d with regard to discovery responses and expert disclosure. In light of Defendants' response to the i n s ta n t motion, the adequacy of discovery responses and status of future discovery should be addressed. C a se No.: 3:05cv147/MCR/EMT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?