Thomas v. Cargill, Incorporated

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The defendant's motion, 14 , is DENIED; however, the September 19, 2014 deadlines in the scheduling order, 5 , are extended to October 3, 2014 for both parties. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 9/19/14. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHERN DIVISION AT KNOXVILLE

Lewis Thomas,
Plaintiff,
v.
Cargill, Incorporated,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 3:14-CV-100-PLR-HBG

Memorandum and Order
This matter comes before the Court on the defendant’s motion to suspend the scheduling
order’s September 19, 2014 deadlines, set a scheduling conference, and order the plaintiffs new
counsel, if any, to attend the scheduling conference. [R. 14]. In support of its motion, the
defendant states that the plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case on July 9, 2014, and the
plaintiff has not yet, as far as the defendant is aware, hired new counsel. The plaintiff’s expert
disclosure deadline and both parties’ dispositive motion deadlines are September 19, 2014. The
defendant’s motion states, “[t]o allow any new attorney of Mr. Thomas to participate in the
above deadlines, Cargill respectfully requests the Court suspend these deadlines for all the
parties and require Mr. Thomas to retain new counsel, if any, to represent him by a date certain.”
[R. 14, p. 2] (emphasis added).
In the magistrate judge’s order granting the plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to withdraw, the
Court clearly deemed the plaintiff to be proceeding pro se. The Court then clearly admonished
the plaintiff to “stay up to date on the status of this case and comply with the deadlines set by the
Court or deadlines agreed to by counsel on his behalf.” [R. 11, p. 2]. The Court also made clear
that the plaintiff, “like any other party, will be expected to comply with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court’s Orders.” [Id.].
The plaintiff has a constitutional right to proceed pro se, and the plaintiff has not
indicated he is having difficulty meeting deadlines or understanding his obligation to prosecute
his case in conformity with the scheduling order, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Local
Rules. Moreover, the plaintiff has not asked the Court to change any deadlines contained in the
scheduling order. 1

Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court will extend the

September 19, 2014 deadlines for both parties by 14 days. The Court will not, however, order
the plaintiff to obtain counsel by a date certain, and the Court will not hold a scheduling
conference to remedy what appears to be a hypothetical problem.
Accordingly, the defendant’s motion, [R. 14], is DENIED; however, the September 19,
2014 deadlines in the scheduling order, [R. 5], are extended to October 3, 2014 for both parties.
It is so ORDERED.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The defendant’s desire for assurances going forward that the remaining deadlines in the scheduling order will not
be subject to change should the plaintiff decide to retain new counsel later in the litigation is ironic considering the
defendant is the movant currently requesting suspension of deadlines.

2