King v. Choate et al

Filing 99

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to depose the defendants 84 is DENIED. Paintiff's motion to strike his deposition 85 is DENIED. Defendants' motion for extension of the time to file motions for summary judgment without providing a date ce rtain 98 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Dispositive motions shall be due not later than 3/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 1/22/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM CARTER KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
TONY CHOATE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:11-CV-0117
Judge Sharp/Brown
Jury Demand

ORDER
The plaintiff has renewed his motion to depose defendants Tony Choate and Faye Smith.
(Docket Entry 84) The plaintiff also has filed a motion to strike his deposition taken by the
defendants on June 18, 2012. (Docket Entry 85) The defendants have filed a motion for an
extension of time to file motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entry 98)
In his renewed motion to depose defendants Choate and Smith, the plaintiff claims that he
will arrive in Morgan County on January 25th for a court appearance on January 28th. The plaintiff
reasons that, because the Morgan County Regional Correctional Facility is only 30 minutes from
Fentress County, there is time for him to depose the defendants while he is there.
The discovery deadline in this case was October 9, 2012. (Docket Entries 50-51) The
plaintiff first filed motions to depose the defendants on November 8, 2012, nearly a month after the
discovery deadline had passed. (Docket Entries 62-63) The plaintiff’s motions were denied because
they were filed “well past the discovery deadline,” and because the logistics of transporting the
plaintiff to Fentress County posed “serious practical difficulties.” (Docket Entry 77) The Magistrate
Judge stated that, in lieu of depositions, he would “allow the Plaintiff some additional questions,
requests for admission, or requests for production of documents.” (Docket Entry 77) Nearly two
months after the deadline for discovery deadline has passed, the plaintiff again moves to depose the
defendants. (Docket Entry 84)

The discovery deadline in this case has long passed. The plaintiff’s motion to depose the
defendants (Docket Entry 84) is DENIED.
The plaintiff moves next to strike his deposition taken on June 18, 2012. The plaintiff argues
that the Court should strike his deposition, because the defendants have not provided him with a
copy of his deposition. In an affidavit filed by Attorney Robyn Beale Williams, Attorney Williams
attests that a copy of the transcript and errata sheets were forwarded to the plaintiff on January 8,
2013. (Docket Entry 96) The plaintiff’s motion to strike his deposition (Docket Entry 85) is
DENIED.
Finally, the defendants seek an extension of the time to file motions for summary judgment
without providing a date certain. (Docket Entry 98) Instead, the defendants ask for a moving
deadline of “one week” after the plaintiff responds to pending discovery requests. The defendants’
motion (Docket Entry 98) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The defendants’ motion to
extend the time to file dispositive motions is GRANTED. Their motion for a moving deadline is
DENIED. Dispositive motions shall be due not later than March 14, 2013.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTERED this the 22nd day of January, 2013

/s/ Joe B. Brown
Joe B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge

2