Cruz v. Bribs et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 84 Motion to Produce; finding as moot 85 Motion to Quash; denying 87 Motion for Extension of Time; clerk is not authorized to grant any further extensions in this case. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 10/15/2012. (nbp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION ANGEL ZAMORA CRUZ, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:09-CV-64 (HL) v. BRYAN BRITT and CHRISTOPHER SIMS, Defendants. ORDER This case is before the Court on three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 84); (2) Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 85); and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Daubert and Dispositive Motions (Doc. 87). The Court informed the parties in no uncertain terms in its scheduling order entered on July 31, 2012 that discovery would end on September 28, 2012 and no extensions would be given. The parties were informed at that time that no discovery request could be served unless the response to the request could be completed within the discovery period, i.e., the due date for any response could not be after September 28, 2012. The Court advised the parties to start the discovery process immediately. Plaintiff, however, waited until September 26, 2012 to serve his request for production on Defendants. Clearly, the due date for a response to the request for production would fall after September 28. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s scheduling order, his Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 84) is denied.1 Defendants’ Motion to Quash (Doc. 85) is moot. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 87) to file Daubert and dispositive motions is also denied. Defendants disclosed their expert in August, and Plaintiff has had ample time to prepare a motion to exclude the expert if appropriate. Plaintiff still has until October 26 to file a dispositive motion if he so chooses. The Court states once again that no deadline extensions will be given in this case. The Clerk of Court is not authorized to grant any extensions of time. SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of October, 2012. s/ Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE mbh 1 Plaintiff’s request for production relates to Defendants’ expert disclosure, which was served on August 24, 2012. Notwithstanding the Court’s statement that no discovery extensions would be given, Plaintiff waited a month after the expert disclosure was made to serve his discovery. 2

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?