LJ Remainder LLC v. City of Atlanta et al

Filing 52

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant City of Atlanta's Motion to Extend Discovery Period and Deadline for Dispositive Motions [Doc. 23 ] is GRANTED and Plaintiff LJ Remainder LLC's Cross-Motion for Limited Discovery Extension [Doc. 30 ] is GRANTE D in part and DENIED in part. The discovery deadline in this case is extended by forty-five days from the date of this Order for the limited purpose of allowing both parties to take depositions and resolve discovery disputes through any available rem edies. There is currently a Motion for Summary Judgment pending. Any further Motions for Summary Judgment must be filed by May 19, 2025. The Proposed Consolidated Pretrial Order will be due within thirty (30) days of the Court's ruling on the la test-filed Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to adhere to the above deadlines. Any further motions requesting extensions of time must be made prior to the existing deadline and will be granted only in exceptional cases. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 3/5/2025. (tcc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
LJ REMAINDER, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA, et al.,

CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:24-CV-00866-TWT

Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant City of Atlanta’s (“Atlanta”)
Motion to Extend Discovery Period and Deadline for Dispositive Motions
[Doc. 23] and Plaintiff LJ Remainder LLC’s (“LJ”) Cross-Motion for Limited
Discovery Extension [Doc. 30]. Defendant City of Atlanta’s Motion to Extend
Discovery Period and Deadline for Dispositive Motions [Doc. 23] is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff LJ Remainder LLC’s Cross-Motion for Limited Discovery
Extension [Doc. 30] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The discovery period expired on September 23, 2024. Both parties agree
that the period for discovery and dispositive motions should be extended by
forty-five days. But each seeks an extension with a different scope. As best the
Court can decipher, the depositions of Atlanta Code Enforcement Director
Daphne Talley and Atlanta’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative did not occur during
the discovery period due to scheduling and other conflicts. (Def.’s Mot. to
Extend Disc. Period, at 2; Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Limited Disc. Extension, at 9). It

appears that the parties initially agreed between themselves to postpone these
depositions through a consent motion to extend the discovery period. (See

generally Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Limited Disc. Extension, Ex. 4 (“Extension
Email”) [Doc. 30-4]). Additionally, LJ had communicated to Atlanta that it
sought to “use the agreed limited extension of discovery to make a motion to
compel unnecessary” as it pertained to outstanding discovery disputes.
(Extension Email, at 3). LJ’s position is that Atlanta, among other things,
“failed to comply with the parties’ agreed production format; [ ] failed to
produce a privilege log; [and] refused to discuss categorical deficiencies and
Atlanta’s boilerplate objections.” (Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Limited Disc. Extension,
at 4; see also Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Limited Disc. Extension, Ex. 5, at 2–6
[Doc. 30-5] (describing Atlanta’s purported discovery deficiencies). Atlanta
acknowledges “Plaintiff’s position that there are certain outstanding disputes
regarding the Parties’ written discovery.” (See Def.’s Mot. to Extend Disc.
Period, ¶ 8).
Ultimately, the parties were unable to agree on the scope of the extended
discovery period. According to Atlanta, “Plaintiff’s counsel advised that he
would only agree to a one-sided extension of the discovery period for the limited
purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the depositions of Director Talley and
[Atlanta’s] Rule 30(b)(6) representative and allowing Plaintiff to file a motion
to compel. Plaintiff’s counsel advised [on September 18, 2024] that he would
2

notice the depositions of Director Talley and [Atlanta’s] Rule 30(b)(6)
representative for September 23, 2024—just three business days away—if
[Atlanta] did not agree to Plaintiff’s one-sided extension parameters.” (See
Def.’s Mot. to Extend Disc. Period, ¶ 12 (emphasis omitted)). From LJ’s point
of view, it had agreed to postpone the previously scheduled depositions of the
two witnesses as a professional courtesy to Atlanta, with the understanding
that the parties would file a consent motion to extend discovery to allow these
two depositions to occur and resolve the outstanding discovery disputes
without a motion to compel. (Extension Email, at 1–2; Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for
Limited Disc. Extension, at 10). According to LJ, Atlanta reneged on that
initial understanding by unilaterally filing a motion to extend discovery to
allow either party to take depositions, even though Atlanta had “failed to
identify anyone that it seeks to depose” during the extended period, and by
threatening that any future motion to compel by LJ would be “sanctionable.”
(Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Limited Disc. Extension, at 4, 7–12).
On September 18, 2024, Atlanta filed its unilateral motion to extend
discovery [Doc. 23], and then LJ unilaterally noticed the depositions of the two
witnesses for September 23, 2024 [Docs. 24–25]. Atlanta then sought a
protective order to prevent the depositions from taking place on that date and
to stay the depositions [Doc. 26]. The Court granted the motion and instructed
that “[t]he depositions will not proceed absent further order of this Court.”
3

(Sept. 19, 2024, Order [Doc. 27]).
At present, Atlanta seeks a forty-five-day extension of discovery that
would allow both parties to take depositions and resolve their outstanding
discovery disputes through any available means. (See Def.’s Mot. to Extend
Disc. Period, ¶¶ 9-14). LJ appears to seek a forty-five-day extension that would
allow both parties to “tak[e] depositions and mov[e] to compel further
responses or documents from previously served written discovery requests.”
(Pl.’s Cross-Mot. for Limited Disc. Extension, at 19). But it further requests
that Atlanta “provide at least three dates and times” for the depositions of
Director Talley and Atlanta’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative and that, “[i]f
Atlanta intends to take depositions of any parties or non-parties, such
witnesses must be disclosed with amended and verified responses to LJ’s
Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3, within five days of the Order.” (Id.).
Having considered the parties arguments, the Court finds that there is
good cause to modify the scheduling order to extend the discovery period and
time for filing dispositive motions, pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4). See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b)(4). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Defendant City of Atlanta’s Motion to
Extend Discovery Period and Deadline for Dispositive Motions [Doc. 23] is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff LJ Remainder LLC’s Cross-Motion for Limited
Discovery Extension [Doc. 30] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The
4

discovery deadline in this case is extended by forty-five days from the date of
this Order for the limited purpose of allowing both parties to take depositions
and resolve discovery disputes through any available remedies. There is
currently a Motion for Summary Judgment pending. Any further Motions for
Summary Judgment must be filed by May 19, 2025. The Proposed
Consolidated Pretrial Order will be due within thirty (30) days of the Court’s
ruling on the latest-filed Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are directed to adhere to
the above deadlines. Any further motions requesting extensions of time must
be made prior to the existing deadline and will be granted only in exceptional
cases.
SO ORDERED, this

5th

day of March, 2025.
__________________________ ___
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge

5