Shamrock Wood Industries, Inc. v. H. B. Fuller Company

Filing 85

ORDER denying 78 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 2/9/18. (bnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
SHAMROCK WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
d/b/a SHAMROCK PLANK FLOORING
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV262-NBB-RP

H.B. FULLER COMPANY

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
On January 18, 2018, the day before the discovery deadline, defendant H.B. Fuller filed a
motion to compel plaintiff to produce email communications in response to discovery requests
and requested the court to appoint a computer forensic specialist, at plaintiff’s expense, to
examine plainitff’s server to identify documents requested during discovery. Docket 78. The
court has reviewed the motion, plaintiff’s response, and Fuller’s reply and finds that it should be
DENIED.
Local Uniform Civil Rule 7(b)(2)(B) requires a party to “file a discovery motion
sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to allow response to the motion, ruling by the
court and time to effectuate the court’s order before the discovery deadline.” The discovery
deadline, which has already been extended twice during the course of this litigation, expired on
January 19, 2018. Docket 73. The last Order granting defendant’s motion for an extension of
time advised all parties that “[t]here will be no further extensions of deadlines . . .” Docket 73.
In addition to meritorious defenses that exist in response to defendant’s motion to compel,
defendant’s motion fails to comply with L.U.Civ.R. 7(b)(2)(B) because it was not filed
sufficiently in advance of the discovery deadline to allow response, ruling and effectuation of the
court’s ruling on the motion before the deadline.

Therefore, it is
ORDERED
defendant’s motion to compel is DENIED.
THIS, the 9th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE