Davis v. Gregory Poole Equipment Company

Filing 38

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Protective Order and denying 35 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant shall respond to plaintiff's discovery requests served April 1, 2015, within thirty days of the date of entry of this order. The period for filing dispositive motions is hereby extended to August 24, 2015. Defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE 35] is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with permission to refile at the close of the dispositive motions period. Defendant may incorporate its prior motion by reference if appropriate. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/23/2015. Counsel should read order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. (Marsh, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:14-CV-12-BO

DANNY DAVIS

)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

)

GREGORY POOLE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER

)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for protective order. Plaintiff has
responded and the motion is ripe for ruling. For the reasons discussed below, defendant's
motion is denied.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging retaliatory and wrongful discharge, hostile work
environment, and negligent supervision or retention in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and North Carolina state law. The Court denied defendant's motion to dismiss [DE
18], defendant answered plaintiffs complaint, and a scheduling order was entered setting the
discovery deadline for April1, 2015, and the dispositive motion filing deadline for May 1, 2015.
[DE 22]. On April1, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. [DE 29].
The motion was granted over objection of defendant by order entered April22, 2015, and the
discovery deadline was extended to May 1, 2015. 1 Prior to the granting of plaintiffs motion to
extend the discovery deadline, defendant filed the instant motion for protective order. Defendant
seeks an order finding that plaintiffs discovery requests served on the closing of discovery
untimely and confirming that defendant need not respond to plaintiffs discovery requests.
1

Local Civil Rule 7.1(a) provides that upon extension ofthe discovery deadline the dispositive
motion filing is automatically extended for thirty days unless otherwise ordered.

DISCUSSION

While plaintiffs requests for discovery were served on the day discovery originally
closed, April 1, 2015, plaintiff also filed a timely motion for extension of the discovery deadline
which was granted. With a discovery closing date of May 1, 2015, plaintiffs requests served on
defendant on April1, 2015, were no longer untimely and defendant had the appropriate time
within which to respond. In light of the foregoing, though the Court does not favor plaintiff
having served its request for discovery on the final day of the discovery period, it finds no basis
on which to deny plaintiff his requested discovery. Defendant's motion for protective order is
therefore denied.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion for protective order [DE 31] is DENIED. Defendant shall respond to
plaintiffs discovery requests served April1, 2015, within thirty days of the date of entry of this
order. The period for filing dispositive motions is hereby extended to August 24, 2015.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE 35] is therefore DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE with permission to refile at the close of the dispositive motions period. Defendant
may incorporate its prior motion by reference if appropriate.

SO ORDERED, this_;). day of June, 2015.

TE
NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J

2