Kobe et al v. Mann et al

Filing 249

ORDER granting 243 Motion to Amend plaintiffs' summary judgment motion. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/17/2014.(gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

Kobe, Mark, and John,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Nikki Haley, in her capacity as
Governor and Chairman of the
South Carolina Budget and Control
Board; Daniel Cooper, Converse
Chellis and Mark Sanford, in their
capacities as former members of
the South Carolina Budget and
Control Board; Hugh Leatherman
and Richard Eckstrom, in their
capacities as members of the South
Carolina Budget and Control Board;
Curtis Loftis and Brian White, as
members of the South Carolina
Budget and Control Board, Anthony
Keck, in his capacity as the Director
of the South Carolina Department
of Health and Human Services,
Emma Forkner, in her capacity as
the former Director of the South
Carolina Department of Health
and Human Services, Beverly
Buscemi in her capacity as Director
of the South Carolina Department
of Disabilities and Special Needs,
Eugene A. Laurent, former Interim
Director of the South Carolina
Department of Disabilities and
Special Needs; Stanley Butkus,
former Director of the South Carolina
Department of Disabilities and
Special Needs; Richard Huntress,
in his capacity as Commissioner
of the South Carolina Department
of Disabilities and Special Needs;
Kathi Lacy, Thomas P. Waring and
Jacob Chorey, in their capacities
as employees of the South Carolina
Department of Disabilities and
Special Needs, Mary Leitner, in

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

C/A No. 3:11–1146-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

her capacity as the Director of the
Richland Lexington Disabilities and
Special Needs Board; the Babcock
Center, Judy Johnson, in her capacity
as the Director of the Babcock Center
and other Unnamed Actors Associated
with the Babcock
Center,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File an Amended Summary
Judgment Motion filed on January 10, 2014. (ECF No. 246). Plaintiffs seek to make several
changes to their memorandum and add four exhibits. Plaintiffs state that when they filed their
summary judgment motion on January 6, 2014, “it was learned that these Exhibits had not been
scanned” and “[t]o avoid being late filing the Motion, the Motion was filed with reference to
theses Exhibits and the Motion to Correct was filed, after consultation by email with Defendants’
counsel.”

(Mot. at 7). On January 10, 2014, prior to filing this motion, Plaintiffs sought

Defendants’ consent. Plaintiffs state that none of the Defendants indicated any objections to the
revisions to the memorandum itself, but The Babcock Center (“Babcock Center”) objects to
Plaintiffs’ request to add four exhibits, the financial statements of Babcock Center from 1999,
2004, 2005, and 2006.
Babcock Center objects on the ground of relevance, and did not claim that it would suffer
any prejudice as a result of the amendment to include these exhibits. The parties are free to
argue over the relevance of these exhibits in their responses and reply to Plaintiffs’ summary
judgment motion. While the court expresses no opinion as to the relevancy of the exhibits, the
court can certainly understand Babcock Center’s objection to adding more exhibits to Plaintiff’s
motion, especially in light of the voluminous nature of Plaintiffs’ motion which currently stands
at 1155 pages and with the amendments spans 1407 pages. However, in an effort to foster the
2

progression of this case and without any evident prejudice to Defendants, the court grants
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend. (ECF No. 243).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina
January 17, 2014

3