Elman v. Wright State University

Filing 154

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY'S MOTION FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE AND FOR NEW SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. # 152 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL AS JOINT MOTION WITH PLAINTIFF IGOR ELMAN, INCLUDING THEREIN A REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 11/22/2024. (bjr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISIONAT DAYTON
IGOR ELMAN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:18-cv-358

Judge Walter H. Rice
V.

WRIGHT STATE UNIV ,

Mag. Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr

Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTWRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY'S
MOTION FOR TELEPHONECONFERENCEAND FOR NEW SCHEDULING
ORDER (DOC. #1 52) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL AS JOINT
MOTION WITH PLAINTIFF IGOR ELMAN, INCLUDING THEREIN A
REQUEST FOR REFERRALTO MEDIATION

Before the Court is Defendant Wright State University's Motion for

Telephone Conference and for New Scheduling Order (Doc. #152), wherein
Defendant states that its counsel is unable to complete the depositions of Plaintiff

Igor Elman and Plaintiff's economic expert prior to the discovery cutoff of
December 6, 2024, due to lack of agreement with Plaintiff's counsel on the dates

and times of those depositions. (Id. at PAGEID 3931, citing Further Am. Prelim.
Pretrial Order, Doc. #144). Defendant "requests a telephone conference with the

Court to discuss the completion of depositions at agreed[-]upon times and amend
the case schedule in a manner that allows for the completion of discovery without

significant delay to moving the case forward. " (Id.).

Defendant's Motion suffers from two flaws. First, despite the parties being

warned last month about needing to comply with Local Rule 7. 3 (Order, Doc #143,
PAGEID 3877 n. 1). Defendant failed to demonstrate that it attempted to seek
Plaintiff's consent on the Motion, as this is a "motion to which other parties might

reasonably be expected to give their consent. " S. D. OHIO Civ. R. 7. 3(b). Second,
during a telephonic status conference prior to issuing the most recent scheduling
order, the undersigned indicated his strong preference not to adjust the trial date
after issuing the scheduling order, given the age of the case. (Oct. 2, 2024,

Minute Entry). The Court must be assured that any further delay of the trial date is
in furtherance of timely and final resolution of this matter, be it by trial or
settlement, and Defendant's Motion provides no such assurances.

In light of the above, Defendant's Motion is OVERRULED WITHOUT
PREJUDICEto renewal as a Joint Motion for Status Conference and New

Scheduling Order. Any such Joint Motion must contain a request that the
undersigned refer the matter to a Magistrate Judge for mediation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 21, 2024

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT