Johnson v. Horry, County of et al

Filing 150

ORDER denying 119 Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; denying as moot 137 Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery Deadline; granting in part and denying in part 146 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 5/23/2012.(hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
BRAD R. JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
COUNTY OF HORRY, STATE OF
)
SOUTH CAROLINA; HUBERT
)
MISHOE; JANET CARTER; JOHN
)
WEAVER; TAMMY BARNHILL;
)
and BRENDA GORSKI;
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
I.

Civil Action No.: 4:09-cv-1758-JMC-TER

ORDER

INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended

Complaint (Document # 119), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery Deadline
(Document # 137), and Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Document # 146).1 All pretrial proceedings in

this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), DSC.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
In his Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add allegations of

conspiracy by the Individual Defendants to violate his constitutional rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The scheduling order deadline for moving to amend the complaint was
October 24, 2011. Plaintiff’s Motion was filed April 19, 2012. When seeking to amend a pleading

1

Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Document # 143) and Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Document # 145) are also pending and will be addressed by separate
Report and Recommendation.

after an applicable deadline in a scheduling order, a party must satisfy the good cause standard of
Rule 16(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., before addressing the merits of a motion to amend under Rule 15(a),
Fed.R.Civ.P. Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008); Dilmar Oil Co.,
Inc. v. Federated Mt. Ins. Co., 986 F.Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997). Rule 16(b) addresses the
diligence of the moving party. Id. “Properly construed, ‘good cause’ means that scheduling

deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent efforts.” Id. (citing 6A Charles A. Wright, Arthur
R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Procedure § 1522.1 at 231 (2d ed. 1990)). Plaintiff does not
specifically address the good cause standard set forth in Rule 16(b) although he states in his Motion
that “it has recently become transparently clear from the deposition testimony of Defendant Carter
[#113-6] and Defendant Barnhill [#113-3] that the Individual County Defendants have been engaged
[and are continuing to be engaged] in an ongoing conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Motion to Amend
p. 2. However, he fails to set forth with any specificity what information was discovered in the
depositions. The depositions of Carter and Barnhill were taken on December 7, 2011. Thus, even
assuming the proposed amendment arises out of information Plaintiff discovered during those
depositions, was not diligent in moving to amend his Amended Complaint as the Motion was filed
more than four months after the depositions. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for
allowing the amendment outside the Scheduling Order deadline, and, thus, his Motion is denied.
III.

MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling the inspection and copying of

the “Complaint case files after 2008" as referenced in the Affidavit of Shelia Hendrick, a Supervisor
in Defendant Horry County’s Code Enforcement Department, and for an extension of the discovery
-2-

deadline to allow time for said inspection and copying. The Court recently ruled that the burden of
producing (or making available for inspection) these complaint files outweighs their relevance to
Plaintiff’s claims. See Order (Document # 135) pp. 3-6 (citing Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), Fed.R.Civ.P.).2
Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is moot.
IV.

MOTION TO STAY
Defendants move to stay the remaining deadlines in this case for a period of ninety days or until

such time and the Court has had an opportunity to rule upon Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. Defendants’ Motion is denied in part and granted in part. Defendants’ request to stay the
deadlines is denied. However, the deadline to file Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) pretrial disclosures is
extended until June 1, 2012. Within fourteen (14) days thereafter, a party shall file and exchange
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) objections, any objections to use of a deposition designated by another party and
any deposition counter-designations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(4). All other deadlines in this case shall
remain the same.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended

Complaint (Document # 119) is DENIED, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery
Deadline (Document # 137) is DENIED as moot, and Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Document # 146)
is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The deadline to file Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) pretrial
disclosures is extended until June 1, 2012. Within fourteen (14) days thereafter, a party shall file and
exchange Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3) objections, any objections to use of a deposition designated by another
party and any deposition counter-designations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(4). All other deadlines in this

2

Plaintiff likely filed the present Motion prior to receiving the Order in the mail.
-3-

case shall remain the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
May 23, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

-4-