Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sanders v. City of Natchez

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division

September 13, 2018

EVERETT SANDERS PLAINTIFF
v.
CITY OF NATCHEZ, MS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          MICHAEL T. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motions to Extend Deadlines [28] [29], Defendants' Motion to Compel [31], and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [33].

         Plaintiff's Motions to Extend Deadlines [28] [29]

         On February 11, 2018, the Court entered a Case Management Order [11], which set a discovery deadline of September 3, 2018, and a motions deadline of September 17, 2018. On August 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Motion to Extend Deadlines [29], requesting that the Court extend the discovery and motions deadlines.[1]

         On August 28, 2018, the Court conducted a telephonic conference with the parties to discuss, inter alia, the pending Motions [28] [29]. The parties informed the Court that they had been unable to reach an agreement regarding the scheduling of depositions and that none of the parties had been deposed. Following the conference, the Court directed the parties to confer and schedule depositions in order that all depositions will be completed on or before September 28, 2018. See Order [30]. Thereafter, the parties noticed depositions for September 17, 24, and 26. See Notices [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].[2]

         On September 11, 2018, however, the parties filed a Joint Report [43] stating that after the parties scheduled depositions for September 17, 24, and 26, Plaintiff's counsel determined that she has a conflict on September 24 and now wishes to postpone the depositions scheduled for that day (Plaintiff and Defendant Davis) to either October 1 or October 3.

         Having considered the parties' submissions and the record and having conferred with the parties, the Court finds that extensions of the discovery and motions deadlines should be granted. However, considering the low priority given to this case during the discovery period set forth in the Case Management Order [11] and the fact that a lengthy extension would likely require a continuance of the trial, the Court will not extend the discovery deadline past September 26, 2018.[3]

         Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

The depositions previously noticed by the parties, including the depositions of Plaintiff and Defendant Davis scheduled for September 24, 2018, shall proceed as set forth in Notices [37] [42]. The parties and their counsel shall make whatever arrangements are necessary to complete the depositions as noticed.
The discovery deadline is extended to September 26, 2018, and the deadline for motions (other than motions in limine or discovery motions) is extended to October 10, 2018.
The parties should note that they have received the maximum time extensions possible for this trial calendar and should proceed accordingly.

         Defendants' Motion to Compel [31] and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [33]

         On August 29, 2018, Defendants filed their Motion to Compel [31], arguing that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient responses to multiple discovery requests. That same day, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel [33], arguing that Defendants failed to provide sufficient responses to two interrogatories. After reviewing the parties Motions [31] [33] and responses, the Court directed the parties to complete an in-person, good-faith conference to address the pending discovery disputes and file a joint report outlining what discovery disputes remain following the conference. See Order [36].[4]

         During their conference, the parties resolved many of their disputes. As a result, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [33] will be denied as moot. The parties, however, were unable to resolve all of their disputes. The remaining disputes involve ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.