Jones v. Albemarle Corporation
ORDER that the 20 Joint Motion to Appear Telephonically is granted in part and denied in part as stated. The Clerk is respectfully directed to provide the appropriate connection information. Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 11/17/2021. (kby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BUDDY J. JONES,
Before the Court is a Joint Motion to Appear Telephonically (the
“Motion,” Doc. 20), by which counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant request that
they be allowed to appear telephonically for the upcoming November 22, 2021
On March 25, 2021, the undersigned conducted an initial pretrial
conference with counsel. A Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan was
filed the same day and, among other things, set November 9, 2021 as the
deadline for the completion of court-enforceable discovery. Doc. 14.
On November 8, 2021, Plaintiff, with the consent of Defendant, filed a
Motion requesting that the remaining pretrial deadlines be extended by 120
days and that trial be reset. Doc. 17. The undersigned denied that Motion
without prejudice. Doc. 18.
Case 1:20-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 21 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 3
On November 9, 2021, Defendant filed its own Motion to Extend Case
Management Deadlines (the “Motion to Extend,” Doc. 19), requesting that the
remaining pretrial deadlines be extended by 90 days. Both Plaintiff’s Motion
and Defendant’s Motion to Extend indicate that little, if any, discovery has
been completed since the court-enforceable discovery period opened in March
A hearing to discuss these issues and Defendant’s Motion to Extend has
been set for November 22, 2021. Through the instant Motion, counsel request
leave to appear remotely for that hearing.
Under these circumstances, and particularly in light of the apparent lack
of progress that has been made with regard to discovery, an in-person hearing
is warranted. Prompt scheduling of this matter was necessary given that the
court became aware of the lack of discovery in this case at the very end of the
discovery period and that other pretrial deadlines, such as the dispositive
motions deadline, are fast approaching.
Further, the undersigned is not persuaded that requiring counsel to
appear in person would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiff and his counsel have
filed this matter in this court and Defendant has retained local counsel in this
district. Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Rothstein, and Defendant’s local counsel, Ms.
Adams, will therefore be required to appear in person.
Case 1:20-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 21 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 3
Attorneys Maria Biaggi and Mark Konkel (or either of them) of New
York, who have been admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendant, may
appear remotely by video if they choose. The Clerk is respectfully directed to
provide the appropriate connection information for that purpose.
Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Appear Telephonically (Doc. 20) is
granted in part and denied in part, as stated.
It is so ordered.
Signed: November 17, 2021
Case 1:20-cv-00346-MR-WCM Document 21 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 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?