Brackett, et al v. Abex Corporation, et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 44 & 45 Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/7/12. (nll)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SHELBY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 4:94cv66

RAYMOND ROGER LEDFORD,
Administrator of the Estate of
William Newell Ledford, Deceased,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

ABEX CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motions to
Reconsider [Docs. 44, 45].
The Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting
the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
as untimely. [Docs. 44, 45]. For grounds, the Defendants argue that the
deadline for responding to the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike had not yet expired
at the time that the Court entered the Order, and that they are entitled to
respond to the motion before the Court makes its ruling. [Id.].

Contrary to the Defendants’ arguments, the Court is not obligated to
await a response to a motion before considering it, especially where, as here,
the relief is clearly warranted. Further, if the Court had waited for the
Defendants’ Responses to be filed, the Plaintiffs would have been required to
respond to the Defendants’ summary judgment motion while awaiting a ruling
on their motion to strike. By ruling on the motion to strike expeditiously, the
Court obviated the need for the Plaintiffs to expend time and resources
responding to motions that were improperly filed in the first place.
The Defendants attach copies of their proposed Responses to the
Motion to Strike for the Court’s consideration. [Id.]. The Court notes that in
these Responses, the Defendants fail to address the fact that the dispositive
motions deadline set by Judge Robreno in the MDL action expired in
December 2010. Rather, the Defendants argue that the parties privately had
agreed to an extension of the discovery deadline until August 2, 2012, and
that “such dispositive motions are generally filed at or near the completion of
the discovery period.” [Doc. 44-2 at 2, Doc. 45-2 at 2]. This argument fails to
acknowledge, however, that the parties made no request for an extension of
the dispositive motions deadline set by Judge Robreno, and thus no provision
was made in this Court’s Case Management Order for the filing of such

2

motions prior to trial.

Thus, regardless of any private agreements made

among the parties to extend the time for discovery, the Defendants’ motions
were untimely.
The filing of further dispositive motions clearly was not contemplated by
the Court in entering the Case Management Order, as evidenced by the fact
that this case has been scheduled for trial during the Court’s September 10,
2012 trial term. The time required for the briefing and disposition of summary
judgment motions at this late date would render the trial schedule set forth in
this Case Management Order a nullity.
In sum, the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment was clearly
untimely, and the Court was not obligated to await a response from the
Defendants before granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. Accordingly, the
Defendants’ request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motions to
Reconsider [Docs. 44, 45] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: August 7, 2012

3