McNeal v. Wood County, Texas et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE 65 . Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 1/19/2010. (gsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS T Y L E R DIVISION

J E N E T T A MCNEAL

v.

W O O D COUNTY CSCD and D E B R A MIEARS

§ § § § § § § § §

C a s e No. 6:08-cv-418

M E M O R A N D U M AND OPINION DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE P la in tif f filed this employment discrimination action on October 30, 2008, alleging th a t Defendants fired her because of her race. This case is set for a pretrial conference on J a n u a r y 25, 2010 and jury selection on January 26, 2010. The Court recently denied D e f e n d a n t s ' request to continue the trial. The reasons for the Court's denial are set forth b e lo w . T h is case was originally set on the Court's November 2009 trial docket. The parties a g re e d to this setting at a scheduling conference in February 2009­nine months prior to the tria l setting. Furthermore, the Court's Scheduling Order noted that it would not be modified e x c e p t upon a showing of good cause. A s the trial approached, however, defense counsel requested a continuance in light o f a conflicting trial in state court. The Court denied Defendants' motion to continue, noting th a t defense counsel agreed to the conflicting state court trial date after the trial schedule was Page 1 of 3

already set in this case. T h e parties proceeded under the original scheduling order, which listed a November 2 0 0 9 trial date. The parties filed their pretrial material, including their proposed pretrial o rd e r, proposed jury instructions, motions in limine, and witness and exhibit lists. But on the e v e of trial, Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order denying summary ju d g m e n t on the issue of qualified immunity. In light of the appeal, the Court cancelled the N o v e m b e r trial setting and stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal. L e ss than one month later, without filing any briefing in the appellate court and w ith o u t providing any explanation, Defendants withdrew their appeal. Upon receipt of the m a n d a te from the Fifth Circuit dismissing the appeal, the Court gave this case an expedited tria l setting. As noted above, the case is set for pretrial on January 25, 2010 and jury s e le c tio n on January 26, 2010. D e f e n d a n ts' opposed motion to continue this expedited setting cites defense counsel's v a c a t io n schedule, travel restrictions on another defense attorney, and work-related time c o n s tra in ts of Defendant Debra Miears. None of these rise to the level of good cause to w a rra n t further delay of this case. T h e Court is skeptical that Defendants' interlocutory appeal was made in good faith. Instead, it appears that defense counsel manipulated the rules of procedure to receive a c o n tin u a n c e that the Court previously had denied. The Court refuses to reward this behavior b y resetting the trial date according to defense counsel's vacation plans or due to other

Page 2 of 3

inconveniences incurred by Defendants or defense counsel. . F u rth e rm o re , Plaintiff was prepared for a November trial date as ordered by this C o u rt. Plaintiff is now entitled to a trial without further delay. F o r the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion for Continuance (Doc. No. 65) is D E N IE D . I t is SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 19th day of January, 2010.

____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3