Farmer v. Seterus, Inc. (PLR2)
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 1/20/2017. (KMK, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
SETERUS, INC., and FEDERAL NATIONAL,
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
The parties appeared before the Court telephonically to address a discovery dispute and the
Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc. 18], filed on January 11, 2017.
As to the discovery dispute, Defendant Seterus asserts that on November 8, 2016, it served upon
the Plaintiff its First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. To date, the
Plaintiff has not responded to the written discovery request, which was due on December 12, 2016,
or indicate when responses would be forthcoming despite Seterus’ efforts to contact Plaintiff’s
counsel on three septate occasions to inquire when responses could be expected. Plaintiff’s
counsel states that due to his schedule in conjunction with previously scheduled matters, he has
been unable to meet with the Plaintiff to provide responses to the discovery request. During the
telephone conference, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that he would be able to respond
to the discovery request within the next 14 days. Counsel for Seterus stated that it had no objection
to a 14-day extension of time.
Based upon the Plaintiff’s representation during the telephone conference and the lack of
opposition from Defendant Seterus, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff an extension of time, up to
and including February 3, 2017, in which to provide full and complete responses to Defendant
Seterus’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
As to the Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [Doc. 18], the motion requests
that the January 14, 2017 deadline for filing dispositive motions be extended to February 14, 2017.
The motion explains that because Seterus has been unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain discovery
responses from the Plaintiff, it would not be able to meet the dispositive motion deadline set forth
in the Scheduling Order [Doc. 13]. The motion also states that the Plaintiff does not oppose
extending the dispositive motion deadline to February 14, 2017. During the telephone conference,
the parties stated that they would be mediating this case on February 13 or 15, 2017.
For good cause shown, the Court finds the Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend
Scheduling Order [Doc. 18] is well taken, and the same is GRANTED. Because the parties are
planning to mediate the case of February 13 or 15, the Court RESETS the dispositive motion
deadline to February 24, 2017. All other deadlines as set forth in the Scheduling Order [Doc. 13]
shall remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?