J.W. et al v. Clarksville/Montgomery County School System

Filing 46

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Ascertain Status for a modification of the scheduling order to permit completion ofdiscovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/28/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
J.W., et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
CLARKSVILLE/MONTGOMERY COUNTY
SCHOOL SYSTEM,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:12-01083
Judge Nixon/Bryant

O R D E R
The Senior District Judge has referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge Plaintiffs’ request, contained in their response
to Defendant’s motion to ascertain status (Docket Entry No. 38),
for a modification of the scheduling order to permit completion of
discovery. Defendant in its reply (Docket Entry No. 41) opposes
such modification and argues that grounds for it do not exist.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing on
this matter on August 28, 2014. Plaintiffs’ counsel participated by
telephone and defense counsel appeared in the courtroom. Upon
questioning by the undersigned, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that she
had not yet received from the court reporters certain transcripts
of depositions taken in June, and that she needed to review these
transcripts in order to determine whether she needed additional
discovery.

Plaintiffs’

counsel

further

stated

that

she

had

contacted, or was about to contact, the court reporters involved,
and expected to have possessions of these deposition transcripts
within the next few days.
With respect to the pending summary judgment motion,

which appears to be fully briefed, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that
she thought that some of the deposition testimony in the deposition
transcripts not yet received may have some bearing on Defendant’s
motion. However, Plaintiffs have filed no affidavit or declaration
in compliance with Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure specifying any additional proof they need in order to
respond to Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment.
In summary, other than the stated need to obtain court
reporters transcripts of depositions taken in June of this year,
Plaintiffs’

counsel

has

failed

to

describe

specifically

any

additional discovery that is needed in order to try this case when
scheduled or to respond to Defendant’s pending motion for summary
judgment.

In

the

absence

of

such

evidence,

the

undersigned

Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiffs’ request to modify the case
management order should be DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge