Anderson v. Mississippi Baptist Medical Center et al

Filing 47

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 33 Motion to Take Additional Depositions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on May 23, 2011. (jsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
PENG Z. ANDERSON

PLAINTIFF

V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10cv469-TSL-MTP

MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER
BETHANY HILL

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ON MOTIONS
Pending are Plaintiff’s motions for additional time to complete discovery [32] and to take
additional depositions [33]. For the reasons which follow, the motion for additional time will be
granted in part and denied in part and the motion to take additional depositions will be denied.
Additional time for discovery – The request for additional time (30 days) to complete
discovery is not supported by good cause. The only reason given for the proposed extension is
that Plaintiff now desires to take additional depositions after having filed a second set of written
discovery near the discovery deadline. Though a case management order was entered on
December 30, 2010 (see Order [8]), the docket does not reflect that a single deposition was
noticed prior to May 6, 2011. Docket Entries [27]-[31]. No reasons are given for the delay in
taking depositions or why all depositions must be scheduled for the last minute. Likewise, no
reasons are given why the few remaining depositions cannot be completed prior to the current
discovery deadline of June 20, 2011.
The court will extend the discovery deadline for two weeks only or until July 6, 2011.
Likewise, the motions deadline for all motions except motions in limine will be extended by two

weeks or until July 20, 2011.1
Additional depositions – The request for additional depositions is denied on two
grounds. First, the discovery motion is not accompanied by a good faith certificate as required by
the local rules. See L.U. Civ. R. 37(a). The rule requires the parties to discuss such matters
before a motion is filed in order to eliminate unnecessary motions or to narrow the issues in
dispute.
The second ground is related to the first. As the defendants point out, the motion
states that Plaintiff wishes to depose eight fact witnesses, including Bethany Hill, Brenda Howie,
Princess Foster, and Deborah Hollingsworth; however, the motion fails to identify the remaining
four fact witnesses–referring to them only as Plaintiff’s treating physicians. A good faith
conference may have eliminated this concern and perhaps even the need to file a motion.
Plaintiff did not reply to the response, provide additional information or otherwise provide good
cause to justify the proposed extra depositions.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for additional time to complete
discovery is granted in part and denied in part as set for above. The motion to take additional
depositions is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 23rd day of May, 2011.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Defendants do not oppose an extension of the discovery deadline provided the motions
deadline is also extended. See Response [34].