Mayhew v. Town of Smyrna, Tennessee et al
ORDER granting 92 Motion Continue Pretrial Conference. The pretrial conference previously scheduled for October 10, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. is stricken and reset for November 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Marvin E. Aspen on 9/29/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ab)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MARK W. MAYHEW,
TOWN OF SMYRNA, TENNESSEE,
and HARRY GILL, officially
3:14 C 01653
Hon. Marvin E. Aspen
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
We have reviewed Defendants’ motion to continue the pretrial conference and to modify
the September 7, 2017 scheduling order, as well as Plaintiff’s response in opposition.
(Dkt. Nos. 92, 102.) As set forth below, we grant Defendants’ motion.
Defendants seek a continuance of the pretrial conference, or in the alternative, an order
scheduling a telephone status conference. (Dkt. No. 92.) They also seek modification of our
September 7, 2017 Order setting deadlines for filing pretrial materials. (Id.) While Defendants
“are not opposed to this matter being set for trial,” they argue that “it is an inefficient use of
judicial, attorney and party resources” to hold a pretrial conference in light of the judicial
settlement conference scheduled before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on October 4, 2017.
(Id. at 5.) Defendants also request additional time to take limited discovery relevant to Plaintiff’s
damages. (Id. at 5–6.) Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing Defendants’ eleventh-hour request
is unnecessary and will only serve to delay. (Dkt. No. 102.) Plaintiff observes, for example, that
Defendants have known about the “new” information regarding Plaintiff’s damages since
mid-July, yet they did nothing to seek additional discovery until now. (Id. at 3–4.) Likewise,
when Defendants asked for a two-week extension of time to file pretrial materials on
September 6, 2017, they did not mention the need to take additional discovery. (Id. at 1–2.)
We may amend the scheduling order only when “good cause” is shown.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “When evaluating whether to amend the scheduling order, the court
should consider the totality of the circumstances, along with the requesting party’s diligence in
meeting the requirements of the original order and any resulting prejudice to the side opposing
the amendment of the order.” Campos v. MTD Prods., Inc., No. 2:07 C 00029,
2009 WL 2252257, at *12 (M.D. Tenn. July 24, 2009) (citing Andretti v. Borla Performance
Indus., Inc., 426 F.3d 824, 830 (6th Cir. 2005)). The court “should also consider possible
prejudice to the party opposing the modification.” Andretti, 426 F.3d at 830. Although we
recently granted Defendants an extension of time to file their pretrial materials, and while we are
mindful of Plaintiff’s concern regarding Defendants’ delay in bringing their motion, we find
good cause exists for a brief, final continuance.
Accordingly, the pretrial conference previously scheduled for October 10, 2017
at 9:00 a.m. is stricken and reset for November 13, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. All pretrial materials
previously due on September 22, 2017 shall be filed on or before October 23, 2017. All pretrial
materials previously due on October 6, 2017 shall be filed on or before November 6, 2017. The
parties may take any remaining discovery relevant to Plaintiff’s damages through
November 6, 2017. There will be no further extensions of discovery, for any reason. To the
extent discovery disputes arise, the parties should bring them before Magistrate Judge Brown,
provided that any such dispute may not be used as grounds for delaying the deadlines set for
completing discovery or for filing pretrial materials. The deadlines set forth above are final, and
failure to comply with this Order may result in appropriate sanctions. It is so ordered.
Marvin E. Aspen
United States District Judge
Dated: September 29, 2017
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?