Farmer v. Parker et al

Filing 131

ORDER: A Rule 16 Case Management Conference is set for 5/7/2013 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 4/16/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
KEITH LAMONT FARMER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
CPL. CHRIS PARKER, et al.,
Defendants

Case No. 3:12-0489
Judge Trauger/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Counsel for the Plaintiff has filed a request for time to
conduct discovery and for an extension of the time that he needs to
respond to the pending motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry
126). The Magistrate Judge understands that Plaintiff’s counsel is
due to be admitted as an attorney in the Middle District of
Tennessee on May 7, 2013, at 1:00 p.m.
This

matter

is

set

for

a

Rule

16

case

management

conference on May 7, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 783.
The Magistrate Judge is a bit confused by the fact that
there is a response (Docket Entry 127) to the pending motion for
summary judgment (Docket Entry 108).

At the same time there is a

motion (Docket Entry 126) to delay the hearing on the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment.

The Magistrate Judge will consider

this as a motion to take discovery and permission to file an
additional response to the motion for summary judgment by the
Plaintiff.

The Magistrate Judge believes that the Plaintiff has
raised

issues

which

will

require

careful

consideration.

The

Magistrate Judge is not clear on the depositions that were taken of
two

inmates

apparently

at

was

the
not

close
able

to

of

discovery

attend,

where

either

in

the

Plaintiff

person

or

by

telephone. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge is concerned that it
appears that an affidavit of an expert was tended without the
Plaintiff having an opportunity to know of the expert and to
conduct any discovery on that matter.
In the event the Magistrate Judge does decide to allow
additional discovery, a new trial date will have to be secured.
Plaintiff’s counsel should bring with him a proposed scheduling
order which, if the Magistrate Judge reopens discovery, would
provide appropriate new deadlines. If the parties are in agreement
on reopening discovery it could be a joint proposal. To the extent
the Defendants oppose the reopening of discovery, the Magistrate
Judge will consider their arguments before finally ruling.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

2