Ajibade et al v. Harris et al

Filing 105

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 104 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The Scheduling Order is amended. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 2/2/17. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
SOLOMON OLUDAMISI
AJIBADE, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN WILCHER, in his official )
capacity as Chatham County
)
Sheriff, et al. ,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CV416-082

ORDER
The plaintiffs and defendants Sheriff Wilcher and Maxine Evans
have moved the Court for a 45-day extension to complete discovery. Doc.
104. In its last Order granting an extension of time, the Court warned
that no further extensions would be granted. Doc. 92. That was no idle
threat. As discussed below, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in
part, the movant’s requested extension.
Movants point out that the “chief reason” for the requested
extension is their difficulty scheduling the deposition of Stacey
Desamours, the doctor who performed the autopsy on Mathew Ajibade.
Doc. 104 at 1, 3. Her deposition is currently scheduled for the last day of

fact discovery, and plaintiffs are concerned that they will be unable to
follow-up on any information she reveals. Id. at doc. 3.
The remaining reasons for the requested extension are vague and
hypothetical, e.g. “based on past discussions between certain parties, it is

likely that document productions will need to be supplemented again,”
and “possible that new motions to compel will be filed,” and a subpoena
objection “is possibly anticipated.” Id. at 2, 4 (emphasis added). Those
don’t cut the mustard. Movants also identify difficulties with
depositions, including party depositions, 1 and subpoenas. Id. at 2-4. Yet,
they say nothing about why such difficulties could not or cannot be
addressed during the already-extended discovery period. Id.
Accordingly, the request for “45 additional days across the board,”
is DENIED . The requested extension to the expert discovery period, to
accommodate the deposition of Dr. Desamours on the last day of fact
discovery, is GRANTED . If that deposition produces information that
requires a limited reopening of fact discovery, the Court will consider
1

In particular plaintiffs object to defendant Corizon’s failure to correct erroneous
discovery responses or respond to requests to schedule depositions of its employees.
Doc. 104 at 4. If Corizon is not discharging its discovery obligations, plaintiffs may
move to compel. The Court reminds Corizon that, if plaintiffs are forced to move to
compel its compliance with those obligations, it faces sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
36(c)(1).
2

motions at that time. The Court will also consider motions to reopen fact
discovery on a limited case-by-case basis, if other unanticipated or
unavoidable delays occur.
The Scheduling Order, doc. 92, is amended as follows:
CLOSE OF NON-EXPERT
DISCOVERY

03/31/2017

LAST DAY TO FURNISH
EXPERT WITNESS REPORT BY
PLAINTIFFS

05/17/2017

LAST DAY TO FURNISH
EXPERT WITNESS REPORT BY
DEFENDANTS

06/26/2017

JOINT STATUS REPORT DUE

06/28/2017

CLOSE OF EXPERT DISCOVERY

08/18/2017

LAST DAY FOR FILING CIVIL
MOTIONS INCLUDING
DAUBERT MOTIONS BUT
EXCLUDING MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

09/28/2017

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of February, 2017.

LilcilED STATES MAGI[STRA[E JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3