Melton Properties, LLC et al v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al

Filing 392

ORDER denying 387 Motion for Trial Setting. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 11/28/22. (jla)

Case: 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV Doc #: 392 Filed: 11/28/22 1 of 2 PageID #: 9135

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MELTON PROPERTIES, LLC., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

NO. 4:18-CV-79-DMB-JMV

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On August 22, 2022, the Court extended the stay in this case under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine based on the remediation efforts overseen by the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality. Doc. #386. The stay is set to expire on February 26, 2023. See id. at
PageID 9106.
On September 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Trial Setting” requesting that the
Court “set this matter for trial during the summer of 2024.” Doc. #387. The plaintiffs argue the
Court should set trial for July 2024 “[b]ecause a substantial amount of discovery has already been
conducted, because [they] have been waiting to be made whole for more than seven years (nine by
the time of the requested trial date), and because there is no hinderance to the parties’ ability to
prepare for trial within [the] requested timeframe.” Doc. #388 at 1. Illinois Central opposes the
motion, arguing that “(1) it is premature to set a trial date and scheduling deadlines while the
MDEQ-directed remediation is progressing and the stay remains in place, and (2) the trial date and
schedule proposed by Plaintiffs will not allow sufficient time for expert designations, discovery,
and/or motion practice.” Doc. #390 at 1–2.
The Court is certainly cognizant of the amount of time this case has been pending. But
given the nature and course of this litigation, the current stay of this case, the reasons for the stay

Case: 4:18-cv-00079-DMB-JMV Doc #: 392 Filed: 11/28/22 2 of 2 PageID #: 9136

articulated in prior orders,1 the fact that the timing and extent of discovery will be impacted by the
progress of the ongoing remediation (which, in turn, will ultimately determine what date is
appropriate for trial), the motion for trial setting [387] is DENIED without prejudice.2
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of November, 2022.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

As specified in the Court’s prior orders, any extension of the stay is “conditioned … on a showing of good cause and
lack of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.” Doc. #386 at 1.
2

The trial date requested by the plaintiffs is over nineteen months in the future. If the plaintiffs renew their request
for a trial date closer to the expected completion date of remediation—at which time the parties will no doubt be more
informed about the successfulness of the remediation and its impact on discovery—the Court could still set trial for
July 2024, if appropriate.
2