Kelley v. City of Cedar Park et al
ORDER Setting Hearing on 82 MOTION to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant City of Cedar Park: Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2022 at 10:00 AM before Judge Susan Hightower. Signed by Judge Susan Hightower. (jv2)
Case 1:20-cv-00481-RP Document 87 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GREGORY RAYMOND KELLEY,
CITY OF CEDAR PARK, SEAN
MANNIX, and CHRISTOPHER
Case No. 1:20-CV-481-RP
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from
Defendant City of Cedar Park, filed April 22, 2022 (Dkt. 82); Defendant City of Cedar Park’s
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed April 29, 2022 (Dkt. 84); and Plaintiff’s Reply,
filed May 6, 2022 (Dkt. 85).1 In his Motion, Plaintiff Gregory Kelley asks the Court to compel
Defendant City of Cedar Park (the “City”) to respond to 28 of his requests for production.
The City served responses and objections to Kelley’s requests for production on January 11,
2021, and discovery closed on February 13, 2022. Dkt. 82-1; text order entered October 29, 2021.
The City argues that the Court should deny the Motion because it was filed more than two months
after the discovery period expired and therefore is untimely.
Local Rule CV-16(e) provides, in pertinent part: “Absent exceptional circumstances, no
motions relating to discovery . . . shall be filed after the expiration of the discovery deadline, unless
than are filed within 14 days after the discovery deadline and pertain to conduct occurring during
On May 2, 2022, the District Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and
Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas (“Local Rules”).
Case 1:20-cv-00481-RP Document 87 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2
the final 7 days of discovery.” Accordingly, Kelley’s Motion to Compel must be denied as
untimely unless he established exceptional circumstances.
The Court finds in its discretion that Kelley has shown exceptional circumstances for filing his
Motion to Compel more than 14 days after the discovery deadline. Circumstances supporting this
finding include that one of Kelley’s original attorneys has experienced health issues, and Kelley
recently retained additional counsel who required time to review “the voluminous underlying
criminal and habeas records” in his case. Dkt. 85 at 4; see also Dkt. 69. Trial is not set until
November 14, 2022. Dkt. 74. In addition, the City has not yet answered Kelley’s complaint, and
the parties continue to engage in depositions and other discovery. Dkt. 85 at 5. Finally, Kelley
contends that his counsel recently became aware of relevant documents allegedly missing from the
City’s production. See, e.g., Dkt. 85 at 2. The Court finds Kelley’s showing sufficient to establish
exceptional circumstances pursuant to Local Rule CV-16(e). See Steward ex rel. Minor v. Smith,
Nov. SA-10-CA-1025-OG, 2018 WL 11361752, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 2018) (finding that
delay in filing motion to compel should not preclude its consideration where document production
lasted for years and motion was filed more than four months before trial).
For the foregoing reasons, the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a hearing on the
merits of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant City
of Cedar Park (Dkt. 82) at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 13, 2022 in Courtroom Six on the
Sixth Floor of the United States Courthouse, 501 West Fifth Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
SIGNED on May 10, 2022.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?