Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum International, LLC

Filing 197

ORDER denying 109 MOTION for Reconsideration re 108 Order on Motion for Extension of Time and 114 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Levia Moultrie re 108 Order on Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 11/30/2012. (msdi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LEVIA MOULTRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENN ALUMINUM INTERNATIONAL,
LLC,
Defendant.

No. 11-cv-500-DRH

ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Before the Court is plaintiff Levia Moultrie’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 109)
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46 and objection to magistrate decision
on nondispositive motion (Doc. 114) pursuant to Local Rule 73 of the Local Rules of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiff is
requesting that the Court reconsider its denial of the motion to modify the scheduling
order regarding the deadline for the disclosure of expert witnesses.
On June 7, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to modify scheduling order (Doc.
105). Specifically, plaintiff requested that the scheduling order be modified so that
Page 1 of 4

plaintiff’s expert could complete his report.

Accordingly, plaintiff asked for a

deadline extension from July 2, 2012, to and including September 2, 2012, in
addition to the deadline for deposition of the expert from August 18, 2012, to and
including October 2, 2012. On June 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Frazier found that
the motion was supported by good cause but found that the length of the requested
extension was a concern due to the potential for inference with other tasks and
deadlines. Accordingly, Judge Frazier granted the motion in part, extending the
deadline for the disclosure of experts along with a written report until August 10,
2012, and the deadline for depositions of experts until September 7, 2012. Judge
Frazier noted that further modifications will not be approved absent extraordinary
circumstances.
On June 27, 2012, plaintiff filed her motion to reconsider (Doc. 109), citing
extraordinary circumstances surrounding the compliance with issues involved in
document production and the fact that expert was a college professor who had limited
available after August 1, 2012.

Accordingly, plaintiff requested that the Court

reconsider its denial of the motion to modify the scheduling order and enter an order
modifying the deadline for the expert’s disclosure and report until October 31, 2012.
On July 10, 2012, plaintiff filed her objection to magistrate judge decision on
nondispositive motion (Doc. 114), objecting to the magistrate judge’s decision
acceptance of the facts alleged in the defendant Union’s response in light of the
discovery issues that were brought to his attention during efforts in May to compel
discovery and in light of his decisions with regard to resolution of those issues.
Page 2 of 4

The Court may modify or reverse a decision of a magistrate judge on a
nondispositive issue upon a showing that the magistrate judge’s decision is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 71.1(a); SDIL-LR 73.1(a). A finding
is clearly erroneous when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City
of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)); see also Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126
F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The clear error standard means that the district court
can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”). “When there are two
permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be
clearly erroneous.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574 (citing United States v. Yellow Cab
Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342 (1949)).
Here, the magistrate judge’s decision was not clearly or erronous or contrary
to law and the motion to reconsider (Doc. 109) and objection to magistrate judge
decision on nondispositive motion (Doc. 114) are denied. The magistrate judge gave
plaintiff ample time to comply with the deadlines for the disclosure of expert
witnesses and granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension in part.

Plaintiff’s

complaints about the disclosure of discovery involve a party who is no longer a party
in this case, and in any event, plaintiff has failed to show how the magistrate judge’s
decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Indeed, in plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider, plaintiff asked for an extension of time, until October 31, 2012, that was
Page 3 of 4

not even presented to the magistrate. Thus, the motions are denied (Docs. 109 &
114).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 30th day of November, 2012.

David R. Herndon
2012.11.30
14:58:58 -06'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 4 of 4