Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

Filing 71

ORDER denying as moot 67 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 10/18/2012. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-659-MOC-DCK
SYLVESTER C. JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the “Expedited Motion To Enlarge
Defendant’s Expert Report Deadline” (Document No. 67). This motion has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is now ripe for review. Having
carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the
motion.
Defendant’s “Expedited Motion...” (Document No. 67) was filed on October 11, 2012,
seeking to extend Defendant’s Expert Report deadline of October 12, 2012. The undersigned issued
an “Order” (Document No. 68) on October 12, 2012, directing Plaintiff to file an expedited response
to the pending motion. Plaintiff filed a timely response on October 16, 2012, and inter alia, asserted
that the pending motion was moot because Defendant served “Defendant’s Expert Witness
Disclosure And Reports” (Document No. 69, pp.6-49) on October 12, 2012. (Document No. 69,
p.1).
Defendant filed its “Reply Brief In Further Support Of Defendant Walmart’s Expedited
Motion To Enlarge Its Expert Report Deadline” (Document No. 70) on October 18, 2012.
Defendant’s “Reply Brief...” in support of its motion fails to address Plaintiff’s assertion that the

pending motion is moot, or to even acknowledge that it served Plaintiff with “Defendant’s Expert
Witness Disclosure And Reports” (Document No. 69, pp.6-49) on October 12, 2012. In an effort
to clarify the procedural status of the pending motion, the undesigned’s staff contacted Defendant’s
counsel who contends that the pending motion is not moot.
The undersigned finds that Defendant timely served its “...Expert Witness Disclosure and
Reports” on October 12, 2012, even though it filed an expedited motion on October 11, 2012
seeking to “extend Defendant’s Expert Report deadline.” (Document No. 67, p.1). Under these
circumstances, it appears that the pending “Expedited Motion To Enlarge Defendant’s Expert Report
Deadline” (Document No. 67) is indeed moot, and that Defendant’s “Reply Brief...” offers no
specific argument to the contrary.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the “Expedited Motion To Enlarge Defendant’s
Expert Report Deadline” (Document No. 67) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may supplement their Expert Reports as
follows:
Plaintiff’s Expert Report Supplement:

October 26, 2012;

Defendant’s Expert Report Supplement:

November 2, 2012.

SO ORDERED.

Signed: October 18, 2012

2