Sokolowski v. The Fresh Market, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER terminating 12 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, and terminating 14 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. The parties are, therefore, DIRECTED to file a revised Rule 26(f) Report, addressing these scheduling deficiencies, no later than September 13, 2024. (Rule 26 Report due by 9/13/2024). Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray on 8/30/24. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
SUSAN SOKOLOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FRESH MARKET, INC.,
CASSANDRE RUBLOWITZ,
AND JOHN DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV424-170

ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report. Docs. 12 & 14.
The District Judge requires that parties structure discovery in four
sequential stages. Doc. 14 at 6. This sequence is clearly articulated in
Section IV of the required Rule 26(f) Report form, as is the instruction:
Unless the parties show good cause to proceed
otherwise, the parties must propose discovery
deadlines that follow this sequential course. In other
words, absent a specific showing of good cause, the
parties should not propose one deadline to accomplish
all discovery measures. Rather, the parties must
propose sequential deadlines by which they shall
successively accomplish each of the above four areas of
discovery.
Id. In the section of the form provided for the parties to state the cause
1

for any deviation from the required sequence, the parties answered,
“N/A.” Id.
Despite the clear instructions from the Court, the discovery
schedule proposed does not conform to the required sequence, and the
parties have failed to show good cause for their deviation. Specifically,
the deadlines for deposing non-expert witnesses and providing expert
witness disclosures both arrive before the deadline for the conclusion of
fact-based written discovery, inspections, and examinations. See doc. 14
at 7-9. Further, the deadline for deposing expert witnesses is identical
to the deadline for the conclusion of fact-based written discovery,
inspections, and examinations. Id. at 9. To be clear, it is the Court’s
expectation that the parties will set sequential deadlines which will allow
them to 1) first complete all fact-based written discovery, inspections and
examinations; 2) then to conduct the depositions of non-expert witnesses;
3) then to provide expert disclosures; and 4) then to conduct expert
witness depositions. Each stage of discovery should be completed before
proceeding to the next. To the extent the parties wish to deviate from
this sequence, they must show good cause in their renewed Rule 26(f)
Report.
2

Additionally, the parties’ original Rule 26(f) Report included the
signature of an attorney, Amanda Pittman, who is not admitted to
practice in this Court. Doc. 12. A notice of filing deficiency was issued
on August 29, 2024, and the parties filed an amended Rule 26(f) Report
later that day. Docs. 13 & 14. While Ms. Pittman’s signature was
removed from the amended Rule 26(f) Report, the defects related to
discovery scheduling remain. See generally doc. 14.
The parties are, therefore, DIRECTED to file a revised Rule 26(f)
Report, addressing these scheduling deficiencies, no later than
September 13, 2024.

The parties’ pending Rule 26(f) Reports are

TERMINATED. Docs. 12 & 14.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of August, 2024.

_______________________________
____
______
_____________
____

CHRISTOPHER
RIST
TOP
PHER L.
L RAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3