Cashion v. Pratt (Corrugated Logistics), LLC

Filing 40

ORDER denying 35 Plf's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 5/16/13. (smj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00082-RLV-DSC
HOWARD CASHION,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRATT (CORRUGATED LOGISTICS),
LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Cashion’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 35) of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 34) denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend
Deadline for Disclosure of Experts and Expert Reports (Doc. 31).
In regard to nondispositive matters decided by a magistrate judge, “[t]he district judge in
the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On March 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order extending the discovery
deadline from March 18, 2013, to May 18, 2013, and the dispositive-motions deadline from
April 18, 2013, to June 18, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that he understood the deadline for
the production of expert reports also to have been extended, although this was not explicitly
stated within the Magistrate Judge’s Order. (Doc. 31 at 2; Doc. 36 at 3.) However, even
presuming that the two-month extension also applied to the deadline for submitting expertwitness reports, such reports were initially due from Plaintiff on January 21, 2013. Therefore,
even adopting Plaintiff’s understanding of the Magistrate Judge’s clear and succinct Order,
Plaintiff was well past the deadline when he served Defendant with the expert reports on April
1

22, 2013, and when he filed a subsequent motion for an extension of deadlines on May 9, 2013.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge summarily found no good cause for such extension, adopting the
reasoning found within Defendant’s Response in Opposition. This determination was neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 35)
be DENIED.
Signed: May 16, 2013

2