BROWN et al v. SPELLS et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 42 Motion for Leave to File. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 11/27/2012. (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
DUNSTON BROWN and JOSEPHINE
BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:11-cv-91 (HL)

JOHNNY RAY SPELLS and JOHNNY’S
TOWING, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs filed a partial Motion for Summary Judgment in this case (Doc.
38), but failed to include a separate Statement of Material Facts as required by
Local Rule 56. In their response brief, Defendants pointed out Plaintiffs’ failure to
comply with the Local Rules, leading Plaintiffs to file a letter requesting leave to
file a separate Statement of Material Facts (Doc. 42). Plaintiffs’ request is
granted and they will be allowed to file a separate Statement of Material Facts,
but the Court finds it necessary to warn Plaintiffs’ counsel that this will be the last
exercise of leniency in this case.
In the course of this litigation, Plaintiffs have failed to abide by the Court’s
rules in several instances. First, Plaintiffs improperly pled subject matter
jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of their case (Doc. 9). The dismissal was
later reconsidered at Plaintiffs’ request (Doc. 12) and the case was allowed to
proceed. Next, Plaintiffs failed to timely identify their expert witnesses. The Court

disallowed Plaintiffs from presenting expert witness Dr. Francis Rushing since Dr.
Rushing was not identified within the deadline set out in the scheduling and
discovery report (Doc. 37). Finally, after realizing their Motion for Summary
Judgment did not comply with the Local Rules, Plaintiffs filed this motion asking
for leave to file a separate statement of facts. It is worth noting that this request
came in the form of a letter, as opposed to a formal motion filed via the CM/ECF
system.
Despite these grievances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs should be allowed
to file a separate statement of material facts so that their Motion for Summary
Judgment complies with the Local Rules and can properly be considered by the
Court. However, the Court does not anticipate granting any further motions
requesting leniency.
SO ORDERED, this 27th day of November, 2012.

s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
ebr

2