Rogers v. Cotton et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting in part and denying in part (82) Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying (83) Motion ; granting (88) Motion in case 4:08-cv-03891-RBH -TER; granting in part and denying in part (50) Motion fo r Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying (51) Motion ; granting (56) Motion in case 4:09-cv-01290-RBH -TER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 06/07/2011.Associated Cases: 4:08-cv-03891-RBH -TER, 4:09-cv-01290-RBH -TER(dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
CARL JULIUS ROGERS, JR.

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANTHONY COTTON, TIM KEMP,
)
JASON STEPHENS, BRIAN RUDICK,
)
JIM PENNINGTON, and JACKIE GAUSE, )
in their individual and official capacities,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
)
CARL JULIUS ROGERS, JR.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF HARTSVILLE, HARTSVILLE )
POLICE DEPARTMENT and ANTHONY )
COTTON, in his individual and official
)
capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No: 4:08-cv-03891-RBH-TER

ORDER

C/A No.: 4:09-1290-RBH-TER

This matter is before the court upon plaintiff’s motion for supplemental subpoenas. (Doc.
#88 in 4:08-3891-RBH-TER and doc. #56 in 4:09-1290-RBH-TER). Plaintiff originally filed a
motion for subpoenas on November 19, 2010, and March 7, 2011. (Docs. #67 and #77 in 4:08-3891RBH-TER and doc. #44 in 4:09-1290-RBH-TER). These motions were granted by Order of March
24, 2011. (See doc. #78 in 4:08-3891-RBH-TER and doc.#46 in 4:09-1290-RBH-TER). Plaintiff
filed the current motion entitled “Supplemental request to Subpoena” asserting that he did not

include everything in the original subpoena to Solicitor Rogers that he included in the original
motion. Plaintiff attached a completed supplemental subpoena form for the court’s review.
Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for “Supplemental request to Subpoena” (doc. #88 in 4:08-3891-RBHTER and doc. #56 in 4:09-1290-RBH-TER) is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is directed to
provide plaintiff with a subpoena form for said purpose.
Additionally, plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery and Amend Scheduling Order” in which plaintiff requests a sixty-day extension for
discovery. (Doc. # 82 in 4:08-3891-RBH-TER and #50 in 4:09-1290-RBH-TER). Defendants filed
a response in support of the motion stating that depositions of the defendants were noticed and
scheduled prior to the end of discovery period. Defendants further assert that they join in plaintiff’s
request and request that the scheduling order be amended so that dispositve motions are due 15 days
after the end of discovery. The motions are GRANTED IN PART. The discovery deadline is
extended until July 29, 2011, and the dispositive motions deadline is extended for ten (10) days after
the close of discovery.
Plaintiff further filed a motion on April 25, 2011, requesting subpoenas for witnesses at trial.
(Doc. #83 in 4:08-cv-3891-RBH-TER and #51 in 4:09-cv-1290-RBH-TER). The motions are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as they are premature. A trial date has not been scheduled. Once
a trial date is scheduled, plaintiff may re-file his motions for subpoena of witnesses at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
June 7, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

2