Curry, et al. v. M-I, LLC

Filing 167

ORDER denying 138 Motion to Set Aside; granting 139 Motion to Expedite; granting 152 Motion for Leave to File; denying 154 Motion to Stay; granting 155 Motion to Expedite.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MITCHELL CURRY, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
M-I, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 04, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-306

ORDER
On August 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Libby held a pre-motion and status
conference addressing the latest disputes that had arisen regarding the completion of
discovery and Defendant’s intention to seek an additional extension of the
discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. The Magistrate Judge ruled on the
record that he would not grant the deadline extensions that Defendant sought.
In response, Defendant filed three substantive motions: (1) a motion to
compel (D.E. 135) addressed to the Magistrate Judge seeking to compel additional
discovery after the deadline or to prohibit Plaintiffs from offering certain evidence;
(2) a motion for reconsideration (D.E. 136) addressed to the Magistrate Judge
regarding the August 21, 2019 ruling; and (3) an objection (D.E. 138) addressed to
this Court, asking this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. On August
29, 2019, in a detailed opinion, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to compel,
denied reconsideration, and recommended that this Court deny the objection. D.E.
151.
1/5

Now before the Court are the following:
 “Defendant’s Motion Objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Denial
of Request for an Extension of Time” (the objection, D.E. 138);
o Plaintiff’s response (D.E. 145);
o Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply (D.E. 152);
 Plaintiff’s response (D.E. 153);
 Defendant’s Motion to Expedite the objection (D.E. 139);
 Defendant’s Motion to Stay (D.E. 154) pending this Court’s
decision on the objection and any resulting appeal; and
 Defendant’s Motion to Expedite (D.E. 155) consideration of the
motion to stay.
The Court GRANTS the motions to expedite (D.E. 139, 155) and GRANTS the
motion for leave to file a reply (D.E. 152).

The Court DENIES the motion

objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Order (D.E. 138) and the motion to stay (D.E.
154).
Congress has set a standard for the United States district courts that cases
should be resolved within three years of filing. 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(3). This case
was originally filed on March 16, 2017. D.E. 1. After vigorous class certification
proceedings, the Court entered a scheduling order on January 8, 2019, setting this
action for trial on January 13, 2020. D.E. 98. The discovery deadline was initially
July 12, 2019, and the dispositive motions deadline was July 18, 2019. Both of
those deadlines were extended to August 22, 2019, in response to a joint motion.
D.E. 126, 127. However, the Court signaled its concern for the timely resolution of

2/5

this case by refusing to extend the dispositive motion deadline to September 16,
2019, as requested in the motion.
The Court reviews Defendant’s challenge to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling
using a standard of review that requires Defendant to show that any findings of fact
are clearly erroneous and/or any conclusions of law are contrary to the law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995).

Because

Defendant filed its objection before the Magistrate Judge entered his written
opinion on Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, its complaints repeat its
position in seeking a discretionary extension of deadlines rather than identifying
any specific error in the decision.
First, Defendant argues that it has not deposed all the Plaintiffs’ witnesses
that it seeks to depose and Plaintiffs did not sufficiently respond to written
discovery two months ago. For there to be error on this basis, Defendant would at
least have to show that it was denied necessary discovery through no fault of its
own. As the Magistrate Judge’s opinion sets out, however, Defendant did not act
with sufficient diligence in timely seeking discovery or in bringing any complaint to
the attention of the Court in time for the Court to grant effective relief within the
deadlines provided.
Second, Defendant complains that the Magistrate Judge did not extend
deadlines even though the parties agreed to at least a 30-day extension. As the
Scheduling Order sets out, the dispositive motion deadline will not be extended

3/5

“except for good cause.” D.E. 98, ¶ 7. The parties do not have the power to agree
to extend this deadline and the Court need not consider such an agreement.
Third, Defendant complains that the Magistrate Judge did not consider good
cause factors for extensions of the deadlines. As set out in his Order (D.E. 151), the
Magistrate Judge considered all of Defendant’s complaints regarding Plaintiffs’
alleged recalcitrance in providing discovery and found them to be contrary to fact.
He further found Defendant to have failed to act in a timely manner to obtain relief
from the Court within the discovery deadline.
Fourth, Defendant complains that the Court’s pre-motion conference
procedure is improper. Nothing about that procedure prevented Defendant from
acting in a timely manner and presenting its complaints in their entirety to the
Court. The parties had notice of the procedure in the Scheduling Order (D.E. 98, ¶
12) and they are responsible for acting in a timely manner.
Fifth, Defendants complain that Plaintiffs are seeking millions of dollars in
unpaid back wages. The gravity of the claims does not change the requirements for
timely developing a case for trial. This is not an issue that presents any error for
correction.
Sixth, Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced under these circumstances.
The concern for the Court is whether Defendant will be unduly prejudiced by
matters outside of its control. The Court does not find that to be the case here.
The Court must control its heavy docket. The parties had adequate notice of
deadlines and had every opportunity to timely bring any complaint affecting their
4/5

ability to meet those deadlines to the Court’s attention.

Defendant has not

demonstrated any error in the Magistrate Judge’s decision.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion (D.E. 138) objecting to the
Magistrate Judge’s denial of its combined motion to compel and motion for
sanctions against Plaintiffs. The Court further DENIES the motion for stay pending
appeal (D.E. 154).
ORDERED this 4th day of September, 2019.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5/5