Miller v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING 34 Motion for Discovery; DENYING 34 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 37 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/13/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, )
)
)
Defendant.
LARRY DEAN MILLER,

Case No. 3:15-cv-66-DRH-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Discovery filed by Plaintiff on May 6,
2016 (Doc. 34) and the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Plaintiff on June 10, 2016 (Doc.
37).
The Motion for Discovery is hereby DENIED. The discovery deadline in this matter was
April 8, 2016. Pursuant to the Order Regarding Discovery, any discovery disputes should be
resolved informally, prior to the filing of written motions (Doc. 24). No such informal discovery
dispute conference was requested prior to the filing of this motion. Even if Plaintiff had requested
an informal discovery dispute conference, the deadline still would not have been extended.
Plaintiff states that in order to fully prepare for trial, he must depose seven of Defendants’
employees. He offers no reason, however, why these depositions were not schedule prior to the
discovery deadline. Plaintiff also states that he requires records from a May 7, 2015 disciplinary
investigation by Defendant. However, he has likewise offered no reason why such records were
not sought prior to the discovery deadline. Finally, he indicates that he requires more time to
conduct expert discovery because Plaintiff is only “now in a position to be evaluated for purposes
of assessing his vocational capacity and earning loss.” Again, Plaintiff does not explain how his
Page 1 of 2

medical condition (and perhaps on-going treatment) would affect the timing of a vocational
expert’s assessment of future earnings or employability. Such an assessment could have been
made by the deadline and could have been supplemented had Plaintiff’s on-going medical
condition resulted in a different conclusion. The dearth of any information as to why such
discovery was not conducted within the deadline indicates that Plaintiff has neither good cause for
an extension nor excusable neglect for failing to abide by the deadline. See FED.R.CIV.P. 6(b) and
16(b)(4).
The Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Local
Rule 83.1(g) governs the process for withdrawing as an attorney of record when such a withdrawal
would render a party pro se. Attorney Kenneth Leeds withdrawal from this matter would result in
Plaintiff, Larry Dean Miller, proceeding pro se. Mr. Leeds has not complied with the Local Rule
in a number of ways: He has not indicated Plaintiff’s last known address and he has not indicated
compliance with the notice requirements in Local Rule 83.1(g)(2). In addition to the foregoing,
counsel has not made any statement as to the delay that would be occasioned by his withdrawal at
this stage of the litigation – after a summary judgment motion has been filed and only 2 months
prior to trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 13, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2