Brown v. Wexford Health Source et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING 33 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Henry P Teverbaugh, Shawn D Ritchey; DENYING 34 MOTION to Compel filed by Henry P Teverbaugh, Shawn D Ritchey, MOOTING 35 MOTION for Order to filed by John D Brown. ( Discovery deadline extended to 4/15/2016 for sole purpose of taking Plaintiff's deposition.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 3/15/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
SHAWN D. RITCHEY and HENRY P.)
)
TEVERBAUGH,
)
)
Defendants.
JOHN D. BROWN,

Case No. 3:14-cv-1122-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendants
on February 18, 2016 (Doc. 33), the Motion to Compel filed by Defendants on March 1, 2016
(Doc. 34), and the Motion Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on March
14, 2016 (Doc. 35).
On April 22, 2015, this Court entered a Scheduling Order setting forth a February 19, 2016
discovery deadline and a March 25, 2016 dispositive motion filing deadline (Doc. 26). At the
time, Defendants were represented by attorney Brent J. Colbert who sought, and was granted, two
extensions of time to file an Answer. On September 14, 2015, attorney Christopher L. Higgerson
entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants. Then, on February 2, 2016, attorney Jeremy C.
Tyrrell entered an appearance on behalf of Defendants. A day before the discovery cutoff,
Defendants seek a 30 day extension to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition because of “counsel’s recent
assignment to this case and workload.” Prior to receiving the Court’s permission to conduct
discovery beyond the deadline, Defendants issued a notice of deposition to Plaintiff, indicating
their intent to depose him in Springfield, Illinois. Plaintiff currently resides in Chicago, Illinois.

Page 1 of 3

Plaintiff objected to the location; Defendants now seeks an Order compelling Plaintiff to sit for a
deposition in Springfield, Illinois, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d), because they
“should not be required to incur the expense of having to depose Plaintiff in Chicago, or otherwise
arrange his travel.”

Plaintiff himself indicates that he has no money with which to travel to

Springfield, Illinois to sit for a deposition. Plaintiff does not otherwise object to an extension of
time to complete the deposition.
Defendants have made no showing of why they waited until after the discovery deadline to
attempt to depose Plaintiff. Defendants have been represented by counsel since the filing of the
Answer, did not object to the Scheduling Order, and have not sought any extension of the
discovery deadline up until this point. Current counsel’s excuses, that his workload and recent
assignment prevented discovery, does not explain why Defendants (then represented by previous
counsel) waited almost ten months to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition. While the revolving door at
the Attorney General’s Office and the lack of a state budget are beyond the control of Defendants’
current counsel, such concerns should not function as carte blanche to conduct discovery beyond a
Court imposed deadline. The Court will not enforce the untimely notice of deposition and direct
where Plaintiff should sit for a deposition.
However, because Plaintiff has not objected to a short extension of time, the discovery
deadline in this matter is extended to April 15, 2016 for the sole purpose of taking Plaintiff’s
deposition. The Court suggests that the parties work promptly to resolve the issue of where the
deposition will take place. Both parties claim poverty as a reason to take the deposition in
Chicago or Springfield. The Court suggests that the Defendants employ video-conferencing to
take the deposition or that they use one of the Assistant Attorney Generals located in Chicago to
conduct the deposition.

Page 2 of 3

For these reasons, the Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED (Doc. 33), the Motion
to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 34) and the Motion Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Compel is
MOOT (Doc. 35). The last motion is merely a response to the Motion to Compel and has been
considered as such. The discovery deadline is extended to April 15, 2016 for the sole purpose of
taking Plaintiff’s deposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 15, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3