Seckinger v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Filing 16

ORDER vacating 11 Report and Recommendations; Vacating 10 Order, granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time. Responses due by 9/23/2016. The parties are Ordered to file their Rule 26(F) joint report by no later than 9/23/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/19/16. (wwp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MALLIE J. SECKINGER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: CV415-304
(Rel. Case: CV415-306)

EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER
As summarized in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (OSC), the
joint discovery report in this case was due on May 16, 2016. Doc. 10. No
report was filed. The Court therefore directed plaintiff Mallie Seckinger
to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for abandonment
and violation of a Court rule. Id. Having failed to comply, the Court
recommended dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and for
failure to obey a Court order. Doc. 11.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

(authorizing district courts to dismiss an action for failure to obey a

court order); L.R. 41.1(c) (authorizing district court to dismiss for lack of
prosecution).
Plaintiff objects that his failures to timely file his Rule 26(f) Joint
Preliminary Report or respond to the OSC were due to excusable neglect
by counsel, there is no danger of prejudice to defendants, and both this
case and the related case are moving along satisfactorily. Doc. 13
(representing that his counsel failed to appreciate an answer had been
filed in this case and the parties have now scheduled their 26(f)
conference and are prepared to immediately file the required
documents). He further asks the Court grant him leave to file a late
26(f) Rule report. Doc. 15 . 1
According, plaintiff’s request for leave to file a late report is

GRANTED , doc. 15, and the OSC, doc. 10, and the Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissal, doc. 11, are VACATED . The
parties are ORDERED to file their Rule 26(f) joint report by no later
than September 23, 2016.
1

In fact, plaintiff filed essentially the exact same document in three separate docket
submissions, as a “response” to the Court’s OSC and R&R, as an “objection” to the
R&R, and finally as a “motion for extension of time to file late joint preliminary
report and discovery plan.” The Court construes the copy filed at doc. 15 as an
additional request for leave to file a late Rule 26(f) report, and advises Seckinger that
in the future, a single copy filed to the docket will suffice to put the Court on notice of
her objection to the R&R.

SO ORDERED , this 19th day of September, 2016.

UM= STATES NiAGISTRA72 JUJDGE
SOUTI-IERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA