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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?