Rudisill v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Compel. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 4/21/2014. (Edwards, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CATHY L. RUDISILL,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
This case comes before the court on a motion (D.E. 39) by defendant United States of
America (“defendant”) (1) to compel production of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures
from plaintiff Cathy L. Rudisill (“plaintiff”) and (2) to extend its deadline to serve expert reports.
Plaintiff filed a response (D.E. 42) in which she concedes that the initial disclosures were not
timely served. Plaintiff contends that the delay was the result of a complete failure of her
counsel’s computer systems and counsel’s mistaken belief that the initial disclosures had been
served. Plaintiff does not object to entry of a directive to provide the initial disclosures, although
representations in the response, filed 24 March 2014, suggest that she may have by now served
the disclosures. (See Pl.’s Resp. 3, 5).
The motion shall be ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART on the following
The portion of defendant’s motion seeking production of the initial disclosures is
ALLOWED. To the extent plaintiff has not already served her initial disclosures, she shall serve
them by 25 April 2014.
The portion of defendant’s motion seeking extension of the deadline for expert reports is
DENIED without prejudice as premature. Because defendant’s expert reports are not due under
the Scheduling Order (D.E. 27 at 1 ¶ 2) until 15 August 2014, substantial time remains for
defendant to retain experts and for such experts to prepare reports.
Each party shall bear its own costs incurred on the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5).
SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of April 2014.
James E. Gates
United States Magistrate Judge
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?