Williams et al v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

Filing 59

ORDER sustaining 55 Defendant's Objection to the 51 Magistrate Judge's Order. The Magistrate Judge's Order (dkt. no. 51) is hereby SET ASIDE in its entirety. Defendant's Motion for Physical Examination of Plaintiff (dkt. no. 42) and Motion for Extension of Time to complete Discovery (dkt. no. 48) are GRANTED as follows: Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order in which to conduct an independent medical examination of Plaintiff, and a subsequent period of fourteen days from the date of such examination in which to file a report thereof. Additionally, the parties shall have a period of forty-five (45) days following the date of the examination in which to conduct any follow-up discovery for this limited purpose. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/26/2016. (csr)

n the Uniteb btatto Jitrict Court
for the boutbern 1Ditritt of deorgta
Jgrunftitk Oibioion
SANDRA WILLIAMS and
SHERMAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
V.

WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CV 215-055

ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Objection to an Order
of the Magistrate Judge dated December 16, 2015. Dkt. No. 55. In
that Order, the Magistrate Judge denied Defendant's Motion for
Physical Examination of Plaintiff (dkt. no. 42) and Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (dkt. no. 48), on the grounds
that the Motions were untimely. Dkt. No. 51. Defendant now asks that
the Court modify or set aside the Magistrate Judge's Order because it
was inconsistent with the Magistrate Judge's earlier decision to
extend the applicable filing and discovery deadlines. Dkt. No. 55,
pp. 2-3 (quoting Dkt. No. 39 ("[D]uring the hearing, this Court
provided the parties an additional sixty (60) days in which to conduct
discovery. The Court also determined that all remaining deadlines in
its June 8, 2015[,] Scheduling Order would be similarly extended.")).

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) ("Rule 72(a)"), "[a]
party may serve and file objections" to a Magistrate Judge's order on
a nondisposJtive pretrial matter "within 14 days after being served
with a copy." See also Local R. 72.2. Rule 72(a) further provides
that "[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also
Local R. 72.2.
After careful review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
erred in denying Defendant's Motions as untimely. As Defendant's
Objection demonstrates, the Court's representations regarding the
extension of all deadlines reasonably led Defendant to believe that it
could file the instant Motions when it did. See generally Dkt. No.
55. Under such circumstances, the Magistrate Judge should not have
denied the Motions as belated.
Thus, Defendant's Objection (dkt. no. 55) is SUSTAINED, and the
Magistrate Judge's Order (dkt. no. 51) is hereby SET ASIDE in its
entirety. Defendant's Motion for Physical Examination of Plaintiff
(dkt. no. 42) and Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
(dkt. no. 48) are GRANTED as follows: Defendant shall have fourteen
(14) days from the date of this Order in which to conduct an

independent medical examination of Plaintiff, and a subsequent period
of fourteen (14) days from the date of such examination in which to
file a report thereof. Additionally, the parties shall have a period
of forty-five (45) days following the date of the examination in which
to conduct any follow-up discovery for this limited purpose.

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2

26TH day of January, 2016.
SO ORDERED, this

L--

~

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3