Mid-America Pipeline Company LLC v. Wilson et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 59 Motion to Continue a Decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Until Depositions Have Been Completed. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

-TDT Mid-America Pipeline Company v. Wilson Excavating Inc. et al

Doc. 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MID-AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. WILSON EXCAVATING, INC. and DALE D. WILSON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8:09CV370 ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendants' Motion to Continue a Decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Until Depositions Have Been Completed (Filing No. 59). The defendants filed a brief (Filing No. 60) and an index of evidence (Filing No. 61) in support of the motion. The court concludes no delay or expense is necessary prior to resolving this motion by waiting for the plaintiff to respond. The defendants seek "adequate time," prior to having to respond to the plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 53), to complete the depositions on December 15, 2010, of Russell Edwards and "additional witnesses of the Plaintiff." See Filing No. 60 - Brief p. 1. Specifically, the defendants state they have submitted an affidavit from Dale Wilson in opposition to the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, however they want to depose the plaintiff's affiant, Mr. Edwards, in order to highlight how his affidavit "lacks essential facts and foundation for the conclusions" contained therein. Id. at 2. The defendants deny any fault in the late scheduling of depositions. Id. The court finds the defendants have had ample opportunity to complete essential discovery, as evidenced by Dale Wilson's affidavit, enabling them to oppose the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Furthermore, incurring additional delay and expense prior to resolution of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion is unwarranted. In any event, although the motion relates to discovery, there is no evidence in the record that the defendants conferred with opposing counsel prior to filing. See NECivR 7.0.1(i). Accordingly, the defendants' motion may be denied on that basis as well. Upon consideration,

Dockets.Justia.com

IT IS ORDERED: The defendants' Motion to Continue a Decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Until Depositions Have Been Completed (Filing No. 59) is denied. DATED this 18th day of November, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion m a y contain hyperlinks to other docum e n ts or W e b sites. The U.S. District Court for th e District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m e n d , approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services o r products they provide on their W e b sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem e n ts with any of these third p a r tie s or their W e b sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any h yp e r lin k . Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect t h e opinion of the court.
2