Bohanon v. Hollywood Casino Corporation et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Jane M Virden on 7/8/2013. (sef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
DOROTHY BOHANON

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12cv167-JMV

HOLLYWOOD CASINO CORPORATION,
AND HWCC-TUNICA, INC.,

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This matter is before the court on the amended motion of the plaintiff to deem
unanswered requests for admission admitted (#33). Plaintiff served requests for admissions on
defendants on May 24, 2013, via United States Mail. Plaintiff did not file a notice of service on
the docket and the discovery requests were received by defendants on May 28, 2013. Through
an error in time computation, defendants did not serve responses until July 1, 2013, which led to
the present motion.
Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to enlarge the time in
which an act is to be done “on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act
because of excusable neglect.” Id. (citing to FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B)). When determining
whether a party has shown “excusable neglect,” courts consider “the danger of prejudice to the
[non-movant], the length of the delay and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings, the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and
whether the movant acted in good faith.” Adams v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156,
162 n.8 (5th Cir. 2006).
This Court finds that the tardiness of defendants responses was a result of excusable
neglect, and that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delayed responses. As such, the motion to

1

deem unanswered requests for admission admitted (#33) is not well taken and shall be DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of July 2013.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2