Brantley et al v. Muscogee County School District et al

Filing 80

ORDER that defendants produce additional discoverable information, that plaintiffs notify counsel of the names of all persons to be deposed, that the discovery period be extended until March 27, 2012, and that the dispositive motion filing deadline be extended until April 27, 2012. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover costs and expenses incurred in pursuit of their motion to compel. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 12/6/2011 (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
CARLTON BRANTLEY, LARRY
DOWDELL, MELVIN GRIFFIN,
PONDIEL MABREY, et al.,

*
*

Plaintiffs

*

vs.

*

MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, DON A. COOPER, Jr.,
KINARD LATHAM, et al.,

*

CASE NO. 4:10-CV-77 (CDL)

Defendants

*
*

O R D E R
Plaintiffs have filed several discovery related motions,
including a Motion to Compel (ECF No. 69), a Motion to Expand Number
of Discovery Requests (ECF No. 70), and a Motion to Extend the
Discovery Period (ECF No. 71).

After a hearing on the pending

motions, the Court ordered that additional discoverable information
be produced by Defendants by January 13, 2012, 1 that Plaintiffs’
counsel notify Defendants’ counsel in writing by January 27, 2012
of the names of all persons who she wishes to depose, that the
discovery period be extended until March 27, 2012, and that the

1

The Court ordered Defendant to produce the names, job titles, race, and
dates of employment of all employees who were employed in Plant Services
during the period of Plaintiffs’ employment and who were enrolled in the
“Teachers Retirement System of Georgia Plan.” This information may be
produced by producing the personnel files for these employees. Defendant
shall be permitted to redact from those files any personal information
regarding the employees, except for their race, and any disciplinary actions
may also be redacted.

dispositive motions deadline be extended until April 27, 2012.

The

Court also found that much of the discovery sought by Plaintiff should
not be permitted because it was overly broad and burdensome, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence,
and had not been pursued diligently by Plaintiffs during the discovery
period.

The Court further found that Plaintiffs’ counsel had not

conferred in good faith with Defendants’ counsel in an attempt to
resolve the issues that were the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel before filing the motion to compel, and for that reason and
because Plaintiffs have not reasonably pursued the discovery they
now seek in a diligent manner, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are
not entitled to recover their costs and expenses incurred in their
pursuit of their motion to compel.

The Court’s order resolves all

issues raised in the pending discovery motions, and therefore, the
Clerk shall terminate those motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of December, 2011.

s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE