Brenner v. Joseph et al

Filing 73

ORDER: A telephone conference was held in this matter on November 21, 2013. The Magistrate Judge will reluctantly GRANT the motion for extension of time. Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment will be due on or before December 9 , 2013. The Defendants may have 14 days in which to file a reply to the Plaintiff's response to their respective motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge next turns to the motion to stay discovery 61 , which has been responded and re plied to 67 and 70 . This motion is GRANTED. The final pretrial conference and trial dates set in Docket Entry 29 are CANCELED, to be reset following a decision on the pending motions for summary judgment. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 11/21/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CARLA BRENNER
Prison ID 443202,
Plaintiff
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:11-0307
Judge Haynes/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
A
November

21,

telephone
2013.

conference

Thirty-three

was

held

minutes

in

this

before

the

matter

on

telephone

conference began Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion (Docket Entry
72) requesting additional time to respond to the outstanding
motions for summary judgment (Docket Entries 46 and 52).
The Magistrate Judge will reluctantly GRANT the motion
for extension of time. Plaintiff’s response to the motion for
summary judgment will be due on or before December 9, 2013. The
primary basis for the motion for an extension is that Plaintiff’s
counsel was unable to contact the Plaintiff from early October
until November 21, 2013.
The Plaintiff has already been cautioned about failing to
return medical releases in a timely fashion (Docket Entry 38). This
latest failure of being out of communication with counsel for over
six weeks is troubling. A plaintiff who fails to prosecute the case
and to cause counsel to miss court deadlines runs a serious risk of

having the case dismissed for failure to prosecute and to obey
Court orders.
The Defendants may have 14 days in which to file a reply
to the Plaintiff’s response to their respective motions for summary
judgment.
The Magistrate Judge next turns to the motion to stay
discovery (Docket Entry 61), which has been responded and replied
to (Docket Entries 67 and 70). This motion is GRANTED. It is
possible that the pending motions for summary judgment will result
in this case being dismissed. In the event the case is not
dismissed then the Magistrate Judge will convene a telephone
conference with the parties to determine what, if anything, will
need to be done in order to have this case scheduled for trial.
Discovery should have been completed under the existing scheduling
order by now. The Magistrate Judge will be reluctant to reopen
discovery that should have been completed during the discovery
period. Scheduling orders are just that–orders.

Under Rule 16 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure good cause must be shown in
order to modify them.
Inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge will have to prepare a
report and recommendation on the pending dispositive motions, and
any objections to that will have to be briefed and ruled on by
Chief Judge Haynes, the Magistrate Judge has contacted Judge
Haynes’s chambers and the final pretrial conference and trial dates
2

set in Docket Entry 29 are CANCELED, to be reset following a
decision on the pending motions for summary judgment.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

3