Opinion
21-cv-00283-HSG
03-29-2024
MAURICE LYDELL HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. CLERIC MUHAMMAD K. FASISH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO DEPOSE PLAINTIFF; GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION
RE: DKT. NOS. 44, 45
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Good cause being shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request for leave to depose Plaintiff, Dkt. No. 44, and Defendants' request for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion, Dkt. No. 45.
Defendants do not require leave of court to depose Plaintiff. The Court's April 7, 2022 Order granted the parties leave to conduct discovery. Dkt. No. 13 at 13. The Court's October 12, 2023 Order did not vacate any of the Court's prior orders, except to the extent that it reset the briefing schedule. See generally Dkt. No. 29. The parties have been free to engage in discovery, including the taking of depositions, since April 7, 2022, and continue to be able to engage in discovery without seeking leave of Court. Generally speaking, court orders do not vacate prior orders in their entirety even if they reset or alter deadlines set in prior orders, unless the order specifies that it is vacating a prior order.
The Court resets the briefing schedule as follows. Within ninety days of the date of this order, Defendants shall file and serve their dispositive motion. Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion must be filed with the Court and served upon Defendants no later than 28 days from the date the motion is filed. Defendants shall file a reply brief in support of their dispositive motion no later than 14 days after the date the opposition is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. No hearing will be held on the motion.
This order does not vacate any prior order, except to the extent that it resets the briefing schedule.
This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 44, 45.
IT IS SO ORDERED.