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.

Hester v. Jackson Public Schools District

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi.

January 28, 2019

Carol Hester, Plaintiff,
v.
Jackson Public School District, et al. Defendants.

          Before Carlton W. Reeves, District Judge .

          Carlton W. Reeves United States District Judge

         It was 4:04 in the afternoon on Halloween-about the time people with kids were wondering if the weather would hold out for trick-or-treating.[1] Attorney Joel Dillard was working. He was trying to plan out Carol Hester's case.

         Hester, a security guard for the local public school district, claimed she was paid less than a less-experienced man for the same work.[2] Dillard thought he was on to something. The evidence he had gathered showed a pay disparity. But he needed more time to write his summary judgment briefs.

         So at 4:04, Dillard sent a courteous email to the attorney for the school district, Steve Lacey:

Hi Steve, I'm noticing that the deadline for oppositions to dispositive motions falls right after Thanksgiving, and I already know I'm going to need additional time. I also expect that you may want more than 7 days for reply briefing - particularly in late December. How would you feel about a December 18th deadline for the Opposition and January 11th deadline for the Reply?
Also, if you anticipate needing more than 35 pages for the memoranda, let me know what you'd like. Ideally I'd love to give the Court an agreed order on these issues before the briefing begins.
Joel Dillard

         Lacey didn't respond that day or the day after. He didn't respond the next week. In fact, he never responded at all. That was not nice. Instead, right on the November 15 deadline, Lacey filed four motions for summary judgment and four supporting memoranda. The filings spanned 977 pages of evidence and 87 pages of argument.

         If Dillard wanted more time before seeing this voluminous submission, he would definitely want more time now.

         Dillard didn't delay. Eleven minutes after Lacey finished filing, Dillard moved for an extension. He sought about three additional weeks for his responses (to December 18) and even requested extra time for Lacey to file reply briefs (to January 11). Dillard also requested that the response and reply briefs be consolidated and extended to 50 pages per side. Dillard attached his email to Lacey and noted the non-response.

         Dillard, however, then went further. He also sought the Court's permission to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. This was a request he had never broached with Lacey. And this request apparently crossed some sort of red line.

         An irritated Lacey called the Magistrate Judge's chambers. He said he was very opposed to Dillard's motion and asked the Magistrate Judge to hold off on ruling so that he could re-spond.[3] His heated opposition brief followed three days later-on a Sunday night. In it, Lacey argued that any extension, of time or of pages, would be “substantially prejudicial, ” “unjust, ” and “inappropriate.” He didn't just object, he “strenuously” objected.[4]

         At this point, the Court decided to intervene. On November 20, the Court entered an Order asking Lacey to clarify whether he had ever responded to Dillard's first email. Lacey admitted that he had not. He “did not find the requests reasonable or necessary.” On ...


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.