Weikel v. Jackson Public School District

Filing 65

ORDER denying 58 Motion to Strike; granting 62 Motion to Extend Deadline; finding as moot 63 Motion Reinstate Previously Filed Motion for Summary Judgment re 37 Motion for Summary Judgment as stated in the Order. As stated in the February 25, 2020 Text-Only Order, Weikel's response to JPSDs Motion for Summary Judgment 56 shall be filed within 10 days. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on March 20, 2020. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM WEIKEL
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-408-DPJ-FKB

JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOL
DISTRICT

DEFENDANT

ORDER
On February 4, 2020, Defendant Jackson Public School District (“JPSD”) filed a
delinquent Motion for Summary Judgment in this employment-discrimination case. That
generated three additional motions. First, Plaintiff William Weikel asked the Court to strike the
late motion [58]. JPSD then filed a motion to amend the scheduling order and for leave to file its
tardy summary-judgment motion [62] and alternatively asked the Court to reinstate its previously
filed summary-judgment motion [63]. See Original Mot. for Summ. J. [37]. For the following
reasons, Weikel’s motion to strike is denied, JPSD’s motion seeking an extension of the casemanagement deadlines and for leave to file its motion for summary judgment is granted, and
JPSD’s motion to reinstate its earlier summary-judgment motion is moot.
I.

Facts and Procedural History
Weikel sued JPDS for race-based employment discrimination on June 21, 2018. Under

the initial case-management order, the discovery deadline was May 21, 2019, and the
dispositive-motion deadline was June 4, 2019. Order [19]. On the date of the initial discovery
deadline, Weikel filed his first Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline [32]. Judge Ball denied
that motion for failure to comply with Section 6.F.4 of the case-management order. Before
Weikel could re-file his motion to extend the discovery period, and in compliance with the

dispositive-motion deadline, JPSD on June 4, 2019, filed its first Motion for Summary Judgment
[37].
Weikel responded with an Urgent and Necessitous Motion to Extend Deadlines for
Discovery and Opposition to Summary Judgment [39]. Judge Ball granted that motion,
extending the discovery deadline through December 13, 2019, and setting a new dispositivemotion deadline of December 27, 2019. Order [49]; Sept. 11, 2019 Docket Annotation. Weikel
then belatedly moved for an extension of time within which to respond to the initial summaryjudgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Mot. [50]. “In view of the
extension of the discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines,” the Court terminated both the
initial summary-judgment motion and Weikel’s Rule 56(d) motion. Order [53]. It told JPSD
that “[i]f additional discovery does not change Defendant’s motion, it may [simply] re-file the
motion when the [extended] discovery period expires.” Id.
The parties then sought and received a third extension of the discovery and dispositivemotion deadlines. Mot. [54]; Dec. 4, 2019 Text-Only Order. According to defense counsel, she
“calendared the [dispositive-motion] deadline incorrectly,” leading to her inadvertently filing
JPSD’s second summary-judgment motion eight days late. Mot. [61] at 1. She realized her
mistake upon receipt of Weikel’s motion to strike and JPSD immediately responded to that
motion and filed two motions of its own: one for leave to file the summary-judgment motion out
of time, and one to reinstate the previously terminated summary-judgment motion. Weikel filed
neither a reply in support of his motion to strike nor responses to JPSD’s two motions, and the
time to do so under the local rules has now expired.

2

II.

Analysis
JPSD’s motion to extend the case-management deadlines to render its summary-judgment

motion timely falls under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). That rule permits
modification of a scheduling order “only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Courts in the Fifth Circuit consider four factors “when determining whether
there is good cause under Rule 16(b)(4): ‘(1) the explanation for the failure to timely [comply
with the scheduling order]; (2) the importance of the [modification]; (3) potential prejudice in
allowing the [modification]; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.’”
Squyres v. Heico Cos., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Meaux Surface
Protection, Inc. v. Fogleman, 607 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2010)) (alterations in Squyres).
JPSD has offered a reasonable explanation for its failure to meet the dispositive-motion
deadline: counsel’s error in calendaring the deadline. As soon as the error was called to her
attention, she caused JPSD to file a genuinely apologetic response and two motions in an effort
to rectify the error. This factor favors modification.
As to the importance of the modification, Rule 56 exists to avoid trials where there are no
genuine issues of material fact. If JPSD is entitled to summary judgment, refusal to modify the
case-management deadlines would result in an unnecessary jury trial at considerable expense to
all involved.
And granting JPSD’s motion to modify will cause little to no prejudice to Weikel. To
begin, the delay was slight. Moreover, JPSD has been ready to argue for summary judgment
since the original June 4, 2019 deadline. Only Weikel’s motion for additional discovery made
refiling of that motion necessary. According to JPSD, the tardy motion is “identical in all
relevant respects to that previously filed.” Mot. [62] at 4. So, Weikel has known JPSD’s

3

arguments for more than nine months. Extending the dispositive-motion deadline by eight days
will not prejudice Weikel.
Finally, to the extent there is any prejudice, the Court has already granted Weikel an
additional ten days after a ruling on the motion to strike to respond to JPSD’s summaryjudgment motion. With a July trial date, no further continuances should be required, but if it
becomes necessary, the Court could grant a brief continuance of the trial date.
JPSD has demonstrated good cause for the modification of the scheduling order. The
dispositive-motion deadline is extended from January 27, 2020, to February 4, 2020, such that
JPSD’s summary-judgment motion is timely. Weikel’s motion to strike is therefore denied, and
JPSD’s motion to reinstate its prior motion is moot.
III.

Conclusion
The Court has considered all arguments. Those not addressed would not have changed

the outcome. For the foregoing reasons, Weikel’s Motion to Strike [58] is denied. JPSD’s
Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment [62] is
granted, and the new dispositive-motion deadline is February 4, 2020, making JPSD’s motion for
summary judgment timely. JPSD’s Motion to Reinstate Previously Filed Motion for Summary
Judgment [63] is moot. As stated in the February 25, 2020 Text-Only Order, Weikel’s response
to JPSD’s Motion for Summary Judgment [56] shall be filed within 10 days.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 20th day of March, 2020.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4