Allen et al v. City of Grovetown et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 80 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 81 Motion to address conflict of interest. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/18/14. (cmr)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

COURT

FOR THE

GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

GLORIA J. ALLEN,

as next friend

*

of J.D.L., JR., M.A.M., and
Z.G.L., minor children of the

*
*

decedent,

*

Jeremy D. Love,

and GLORIA J.

ALLEN,

Sr.,

as

*

Administratrix of the Estate of

*

Jeremy D.

*

Love,

Sr.,

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

MIKE FREEMAN,

*

Sergeant,

CV 110-022

*

individually and in his official *
capacity as an officer with the *
Grovetown Police Department, and *
CHESTER HOPKINS,

Officer,

*

individually and in his official *
capacity as an'officer with the *
Grovetown Police Department,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration and Motion to Address Conflict of

(Docs. 80 & 81.)

Interest.

For the reasons set forth below, both motions

are DENIED.

Plaintiff

filed the instant motions over two years

the deadline set forth in the Court's January 24,

after

2012 revised

scheduling order (Doc. 24) that explicitly precluded any further
extensions.

A

court's

final

pre-trial

order

controls

the

subsequent course of the litigation and "may be modified only

for

good

cause

Int'l Corp.
Civ.

P.

v.

with

pre-trial

abuse

of

1417,

1418

to

consent."

549 U.S.

Eleventh

continue

457,

Circuit

as

order

will

474

viable

Rockwell

(2007);

recognizes

427

Plaintiff

Fed. R.

"that

mechanisms

of

for

court

and

be

disturbed

v.

Airprint

1998);

absent

a

showing

Inc.,

133

F.3d

Lykes Bros.

S.S.

Co.,

Sys.,

Santiago v.

made

that

ignore

no

would
the

showing

compel

deadlines

of

the

this
it

requisite

Court

set

for

years ago after numerous stays and extensions.
reconsideration of the Court's December 20,

for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings

that

of

(11th Cir. 1993).

has

cause

not
Sosa

(11th Cir.

986 F.2d 423,

ground

See

and thus a decision of the trial court to enforce

discretion.

and good

judge's

appellate courts must exercise minimal interference"

in this arena,

motions

The

procedures

efficiency,

the

United States,

16(b)(4).

pretrial

a

and

"evidence

arising

to
the

diligence

consider her
parties

two

Plaintiff seeks

2010 Order on Motion

(Doc. 21) primarily on the

during

discovery

demands

reinstat[ement]" of the City of Grovetown and Director/Chief Al

Robinson as

defendants.1

states

unless

1

that

Plaintiffs

also

the

point

(Doc.
Court

to

80-1,

acts

the

p.

on

Court's

a

1.)

Plaintiff also

potential

alleged

conflict

misapplication

of

of

a

"heightened pleading standard" in deciding Defendants' Motion for Partial
Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 80-1, p. 2.)
The Court directs Plaintiff's
attention to pages eight (8) and nine (9) of its Order disposing of that
motion where it explicitly rejects Defendants' contention that a heightened

pleading standard applies to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims.
Plaintiffs

also

assert

blanket

policy

reasons

in

(Doc. 21, pp. 8-9.)

support

of

its

motion,

namely that the Court's reconsideration and ultimate reinstatement of the
City of Grovetown and Director/Chief Al Robinson will "further the purpose of
§ 1983: MT]hat a municipality will be liable for all of its injurious
conduct .

.

. .'" (Doc. 80-1, p. 1-2 (internal citation omitted).)
2

interest between Defendants,

it will be "vulnerable to reversal,

and Plaintiffs exposed to time and expense through no fault of
their own."

The

(Doc. 81-1, p. 11-12.)

parties

evidence

that

available

to

completed

now

discovery

purportedly

Plaintiff

then,

on April

"demands"

nearly

a

firm."

(Doc. 81-1, p. 1 (emphasis added).)
are

constitute

good

Motion

for

Interest

September,

severely

cause.

belated,

Based

Reconsideration

(Docs.

ORDER

have

always

" [a]11

therefore,

Defendants

80 & 81)

ENTERED

and

on

month

Moreover,

admits,

been

Motion

All
was
the

as Plaintiff
by

one

These explanations,
and

foregoing,
to

before

represented

deficient,

the

2012.

reconsideration

full

civil motions deadline on May 15, 2012.

16,

Address

do

not

Plaintiff's
Conflict

of

are DENIED.

at Augusta,

Georgia,

this

/ 6

day of

2014.

HONORABpE J. RAKO0AL HALL
UNITED/3TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA