Berry v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 6/22/2017. 47 Plaintiff's Second MOTION for Extension of Time and Deadlines DENIED. 49 Plaintiff's First MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion DENIED AS MOOT. 50 Pl aintiff's Second MOTION to Enlarge Time to File Response to Summary Judgment Motion DENIED AS MOOT. 51 Plaintiff's Third MOTION to Enlarge Time to File Response to Summary Judgment Motion GRANTED; Plaintiff to file response to defendant's summary judgment by end of day 6/30/2017; No further extensions will be granted. If defendant wishes to file reply brief, it shall do so by end of day 7/21/2017. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
AKIDA BERRY,

Case No. 15-cv-952-pp

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME AND DEADLINES (DKT. NO. 47), DENYING AS MOOT FIRST MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 49), DENYING AS MOOT SECOND
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 50), AND GRANTING THIRD
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DKT. NO. 51)
______________________________________________________________________________
The defendant removed this case to federal court on August 10, 2015.
Dkt. No. 1. The court held the scheduling conference on January 14, 2016, at
that time setting the deadline for completing discovery for June 1, 2016. Dkt.
No. 18. The court has extended that deadline several times—there has been at
least one motion to compel the plaintiff to provide discovery (dkt. no. 21), and
apparently many discussions between the parties about resolving discovery
issues. It has been seventeen months since the court first set the
discovery/motions schedule. The court recalls that one issue that slowed
progress was the need for the court to issue a warrant for a witness. The court
also recalls that because the plaintiff lost tools, equipment and paperwork in
the fire, his lawyer has had to try to recreate files.

1

Now the plaintiff has filed another motion to extend the discovery
deadlines. Dkt. No. 47. Counsel for the plaintiff says that the plaintiff has
gotten a job as an out-of-state driver, making it hard for counsel to get together
with his client to discuss discovery issues. Id. at 1-2. The defendant has
objected to this request. Dkt. No. 48. The defendant reminds the court that at
this stage, the only issue is the breach of contract question, and asserts that
there is no more discovery for the parties to do on that issue. The defendant
reminds the court that it has filed a motion for summary judgment; if the court
grants that motion in the defendant’s favor, there will be no more discovery to
do on the bad faith stage of the litigation, either.
The court agrees that it is time to move forward with this case. The court
will deny the plaintiff’s second motion to extend discovery and other deadlines.
Dkt. No. 47.
The defendant filed its motion for summary judgment (timely, under the
February 8, 2017 scheduling order) on May 12, 2017. Dkt. No. 41. That means
that the deadline for the plaintiff to respond would have been Monday, June
12, 2017. At 11:03 a.m. on June 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion to extend the date to respond to the defendant’s summary judgment
motion. Dkt. No. 49. The motion gave no explanation for why the plaintiff
needed additional time. The motion was not filed as an expedited motion under
Local Rule 7(h). The motion asked the court to extend the deadline for
responding to June 19, 2017. At 10:21 a.m. on June 19, the plaintiff filed a
second unopposed motion to extend the response deadline, this time asking for
2

an extension to June 21, 2017. Dkt. No. 50. At 2:22 p.m. on June 21, 2017,
the plaintiff filed yet another unopposed motion to extend the response
deadline, this time asking for a deadline of June 22, 2017. Dkt. No. 51.
The court has no idea why the plaintiff needs these extensions. The court
will deny the first two requests as moot. The court will grant the third motion,
and will give the plaintiff a deadline of Friday, June 30, 2017 by which to file
his response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court will
grant no further extensions of time. The court will give the defendant a
deadline of Friday, July 21, 2017 by which to file its reply brief.
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s second motion
to extend deadlines. Dkt. No. 47.
The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s first motion for extension of
time to respond to the defendant’s summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 49.
The court DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff’s second motion to enlarge
time to respond to the summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 50.
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s third motion for an extension of time.
Dkt. No. 51. The court ORDERS that the plaintiff shall file his response to the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment by the end of the day on Friday,
June 30, 2017. The court further ORDERS that it will grant the plaintiff no
further extensions of time to respond to the summary judgment motion. The
court ORDERS that if the defendant wishes to file a reply brief in support of its

3

motion for summary judgment, it shall do so by the end of the day on Friday,
July 21, 2017.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 22nd day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

4