Burke v. St. Louis City Jails et al

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89 ) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 91 ) is GRANTED, in part. The parties have until September 30, 2016 to complete discovery. Any motions for summary judgment must be filed no later than November 1, 2016. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than December 1, 2016, and any reply brief may be fil ed no later than December 11, 2016. Failure to timely file a motion for summary judgment will waive a party's right to do so before trial. ( Discovery Completion due by 9/30/2016., Dispositive Motions due by 11/1/2016.) Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 8/1/2016. (NEB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) CALVIN BURKE, ) Plaintiff, No. 4:14-CV-2107 RLW ) ) ) ) ) ) V. ST. LOUIS CITY JAILS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89). This matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition. DISCUSSION Defendants Richard Gray, Dale Glass, Leonard Edwards, Tonya Harry, Jerome Fields, Scott Weber, Cordell Rucker, Idowu Adeoye, Melvin Diggs, and Tom Rea (collectively, "Defendants") argue that Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's April 7, 2016 Case Management Order. (ECF No. 89). The April 7, 2016 Order required the parties to provide their mandatory disclosures on May 6, 2016. Defendants state that Plaintiff has failed to provide any disclosures, other than a list of individuals with knowledge of the conditions of the workhouse, and has not complied with this Court's Case Management Order. (ECF No. 89). Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not include a list of documents or any addresses of the witnesses. Defendants request that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's Case Management Order. In response, Plaintiff contends that he has complied with the Court's order by turning over all of the documents in his possession. (ECF No. 90). Plaintiff also states that he does not have addresses for his witnesses. ┬ĚThe Court notes that Defendants have not filed a reply. Therefore, the Court cannot discern whether Plaintiff actually turned over the documents in his possession. The Court also recognizes that Plaintiff provided what appear to be the inmate numbers for most of his witnesses. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff has tried to comply with this Court's Case Management Order and provide his initial disclosures. The Court will deny Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice. According! y, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED, in part. The parties have until September 30, 2016 to complete discovery. Any motions for summary judgment must be filed no later than November 1, 2016. Opposition briefs must be filed no later than December 1, 2016, and any reply brief may be filed no later than December 11, 2016. Failure to timely file a motion for summary judgment will waive a party's right to do so before trial. Dated this 1st day of August, 2016. ~(./!;,/ih UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?