Odom v. Donahoe

Filing 25

ORDER denying 23 Motion to Compel; granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton on 11/07/2014. (Claxton, Charmiane)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM N. ODOM, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.

Case 2:13-cv-02354-STA-cgc

PATRICK DONAHOE, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request
for Production of Documents (“Motion to Compel”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion for Extension”) (Docket
Entries “D.E.” #23 & #24).
The Court’s initial Scheduling Order, which was entered on January 9, 2014, set the deadline
for completing all discovery, including document production, on June 5, 2014 and the deadline for
all dispositive motions on July 7, 2014. (D.E. #15). On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed an unopposed
Motion to Amend Scheduling Order requesting sixty additional days to complete all discovery, to
file dispositive motions, and to engage in alternative dispute resolution. (D.E. #18). On June 17,
2014, the Court entered an Order Granting Motion to Amend Scheduling Order setting the date to
complete all discovery, including document production, on August 4, 2014 and setting the deadline
1

for filing dispositive motions on September 5, 2014. (D.E. #19).
On June 21, 2014, Plaintiff sent a copy of his Request for Production of Documents to
Defendant. (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at Exh. 1). On August 4, 2014, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production of Documents with objections to twenty-five of the twenty-seven requests.
(Id. at Exh. 2). On August 30, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to counsel for Defendant stating that he
felt that Defendant failed to properly respond to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents
and requesting “in good-faith to resolve the dispute without court action” (Id. at Exh. 3). In
Plaintiff’s August 30, 2014 letter, he further stated that he had tried previously to contact counsel
for Defendant by telephone on August 5, 2014—the date on which he had received Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents—and that he had sent a Reply to
Defendant’s Response on August 27, 2014. (Id.)
On September 4, 2014, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (D.E. #21). On
September 5, 2014, counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiff a supplemental discovery response
providing “the Leonard Brown Form 50” and advised that he would keep Plaintiff informed if and/or
when he learns anything more about “the Jackie Anderson promotion.” (Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at
Exh. 4). Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel on September 15, 2014. Although Local Rule
7.2(a)(2) requires a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel within fourteen days, Defendant has
not filed a response to date.
The threshold issue presented by Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is whether it was timely filed.
The Court’s Scheduling Order addresses the timeliness requirement as follows:
Motions to compel discovery are to be filed and served by the discovery deadline or
within 30 days of the default or the service of the response, answer, or objection,
which is the subject of the motion, if the default occurs within 30 days of the
discovery deadline, unless the time for filing of such motion is extended for good
2

cause shown, or the objection to the response, answer, or objection is waived.
Upon review, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was not filed within the discovery deadline of
August 4, 2014, but this is not determinative of the issue because Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was filed on the discovery deadline, thereby giving Plaintiff an
additional thirty days to file a motion to compel. However, the dispositive factor is that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel was ultimately not filed within thirty days of Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production of Documents. Plaintiff neither filed a motion for an extension of the thirtyday deadline, as permitted by the Scheduling Order, nor did the Court extend it for good cause
shown. Finally, while Defendant did not respond to the Motion to Compel as required by Local
Rule 7.2(a)(2), the Court will not construe the failure to respond as a waiver of Defendant’s
opposition to the timeliness of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production of Documents is DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be permitted
fourteen days from the entry of this Order to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
If Plaintiff fails to timely respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court will
proceed to consider Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2014.
s/ Charmiane G. Claxton
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3