Stallworth v. Bryant et al
ORDER granting 210 Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines. New deadlines to be set by the Court after consideration of Motions 214 and 222 . Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 7/11/17 (RBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16cv246-CWR-FKB
GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT, ET AL.
ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY
AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE
Before the Court is Plaintiff-Intervenor Jackson Municipal Airport Authority’s (“JMAA”)
Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline and Dispositive Motions Deadline . The Motion requests
that the Court extend the current discovery deadline from June 30, 2017, until July 31, 2017, and to
extend the current dispositive motions deadline from July 14, 2017, until August 14, 2017. Having
considered the Motion, Defendant Governor Phil Bryant’s Response , and the docket in this
case, the Court finds that an extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadline is
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) gives the Court the authority to amend a scheduling order if the party
requesting the amendment demonstrates good cause. “The good cause standard requires the ‘party
seeking relief to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party
needing the extension.’” S&W Enters. v. Southtrust Bank of Ala., 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir.
2003)(citing 6A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1
(2d ed. 1990)).
JMAA argues that the Court should modify the current scheduling order so that JMAA may
conduct further discovery, the particulars of which are the subjects of Motions  and .
Governor Bryant responds that JMAA failed to timely pursue the discovery it now seeks, and that
JMAA lacks good cause to request a second extension of the discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines. Governor Bryant further argues that because JMAA only filed its motion requesting an
extension of the discovery deadline three days prior to the expiration of the current discovery
deadline, L.U.CIV.R. 7(b)(2)(C) prohibits JMAA from requesting any extension at all.
The Court entered the original Case Management Order  only seven (7) months ago, on
December 13, 2016, and the docket makes clear that the parties have been actively engaged in
discovery and briefing motions since that time. The exhibits to JMAA’s Motion  further
demonstrate that JMAA has actively pursued the discovery it now seeks in Motions  and ,
and did so in accordance with L.U.CIV.R. 26(b)(2).
The Court finds that JMAA has shown good cause in support of its Motion. The docket and
exhibits demonstrate that JMAA has diligently conducted discovery in this case, and that a reasonable
basis exists for it not having been able to complete discovery by the June 30, 2017, deadline.
Therefore, the Court grants JMAA’s request for an extension of the discovery and dispositive motion
The Court recognizes that the appropriate amount of time to extend the discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines necessarily depends on how it rules on JMAA’s pending discovery
motions,  and . Consequently, the Court will set new discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines after ruling on those discovery motions.
SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of July, 2017.
/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Governor Bryant correctly asserts that JMAA failed to file its discovery motions,  and , in a timely manner
under L.U.CIV.R. 7(b)(2)(C). However, considering the circumstances of this case and JMAA’s diligence otherwise, and
having found good cause for an extension of the scheduling order, the Court will consider JMAA’s pending discovery
motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The Court warns the parties that failure to comply with L.U.CIV.R. 7(b)(2)(C) in the
filing of discovery motions may result in the denial of the motion on that ground alone.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?