USA Trouser, S.A. de C.V. v. International Legwear Group, Inc. et al
Filing
38
ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Russell Reighley After the Deadline for the Completion of Fact Discovery; denying 33 Motion for Extension of the discovery period. (see Order for further details) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 7/19/12. (ejb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv244
USA TROUSER, S.A. de C.V.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL LEGWEAR
GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendant.
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery [# 33] and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Take the
Deposition of Russell Reighley After the Deadline for the Completion of Fact
Discovery [# 36]. As a threshold matter, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’
motion [# 36] for good cause shown. The Court GRANTS the parties leave to take
the deposition of Mr. Reighley after the close of discovery, provided the deposition
occurs at lest ten (10) days prior to the deadline for filing summary judgment
motions.
Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery period, which is scheduled to
close August 1, 2012, until February 1, 2013. Trial in this matter is currently set
for January 14, 2013. Plaintiff has had ample time to conduct discovery in this
-1-
matter. Although the discovery deadline is fast approaching, the problems
encountered by Plaintiff in completing discovery are largely a result of counsel’s
delay in filing appropriate motions to compel. The discovery responses that are the
subject of the motion were served on December 23, 2011, yet Counsel waited until
May 5, 2012, to file a motion to compel. Because Plaintiff neglected to include a
separate brief in support of his motion, the Court denied the motion without
prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules. (Order, Jun. 11, 2012.)
Rather than immediately file a brief supporting its motion, Plaintiff waited over a
month to file its Second Motion to Compel [# 34]. The Court will not grant
Plaintiff a five month extension of the discovery period in a situation where
Plaintiff has not been diligent in pursing discovery in this case. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s motion [# 33].
This does not mean, however, that Defendants may simply wait out the
discovery period and hope they will never have to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests. If the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, the Court will order the
Defendants to respond to the discovery requests, regardless of whether the
discovery deadline has expired. Finally, the Court DIRECTS the parties that if
Defendants fail to respond to the Motion to Compel [# 34] by July 30, 2012, the
Court will consider Defendants to have no opposition to the motion and to consent
-2-
to the relief requested in the motion.
Signed: July 19, 2012
-3-
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?