Fidelity And Deposit Company Of Maryland v. C.E. Hall Construction, Inc. et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Adjustment of Deadlines in Court's Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 01/06/2012. (lmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT
COMPANY OF MARYLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV411-102

C.E. HALL CONSTRUCTION;
)
INC., C.E. HALL DEVELOPMENT, )
LLC; CHARLES E. HALL,
)
individually; ZENNIE ELIZABETH )
HALL, individually; and
)
REMNANT PROPERTIES, LLC, )
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER
The parties filed a joint motion to adjust the deadlines in the
Court’s scheduling order. (Doc. 32.) They insist that because defendant
C.E. Hall Construction has moved to dismiss rather than filing its
answer, the scheduling deadlines set forth in the Court’s scheduling
order conflict with the Court’s local rules. (Id.; see doc. 31 (scheduling
order).) There is no such conflict. The local rules deadlines control only
in the absence of a scheduling order. See S.D. Ga. LR 26.1(d) (“Unless
otherwise stated in the Scheduling Order. . .”). Moreover, the parties’

proposed scheduling order sets open-ended dates for certain events that
will be triggered by C.E. Hall Construction’s filing of an answer. (Doc.
32-1 at 1-2.) The Court disfavors such open-ended deadlines. See e.g.,
Gordon v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. CV410-

228, doc. 3 at 2 n.1 (S.D. Ga. entered Dec. 29, 2010). Hence, the parties’
joint motion to amend the scheduling order (doc. 32) is DENIED.
Should the parties require more time for discovery or motions, they shall
submit a proposed amended scheduling order within 14 days of the date
of this Order listing dates certain for every event. 1
SO ORDERED this 6th day of January, 2012.

1JNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Due to an oversight, the Court failed to rule on this motion in a timely
manner. Consequently, it will not penalize the parties by refusing to extend any
deadlines that have already elapsed under the original scheduling order, so long as
the proposed extensions are reasonable.
1

2