Cruz v. Britt

Full title: ANGEL ZAMORA CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN BRITT and CHRISTOPHER SIMS…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

Date published: Oct 15, 2012

Civil Action No. 7:09-CV-64 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:09-CV-64 (HL)

10-15-2012

ANGEL ZAMORA CRUZ, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN BRITT and CHRISTOPHER SIMS, Defendants.

HUGH LAWSON

ORDER

This case is before the Court on three motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 84); (2) Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 85); and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Daubert and Dispositive Motions (Doc. 87).

The Court informed the parties in no uncertain terms in its scheduling order entered on July 31, 2012 that discovery would end on September 28, 2012 and no extensions would be given. The parties were informed at that time that no discovery request could be served unless the response to the request could be completed within the discovery period, i.e., the due date for any response could not be after September 28, 2012. The Court advised the parties to start the discovery process immediately.

Plaintiff, however, waited until September 26, 2012 to serve his request for production on Defendants. Clearly, the due date for a response to the request for production would fall after September 28. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's scheduling order, his Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 84) is denied.¹ Defendants' Motion to Quash (Doc. 85) is moot.

1 Plaintiff's request for production relates to Defendants' expert disclosure, which was served on August 24, 2012. Notwithstanding the Court's statement that no discovery extensions would be given, Plaintiff waited a month after the expert disclosure was made to serve his discovery.

Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 87) to file Daubert and dispositive motions is also denied. Defendants disclosed their expert in August, and Plaintiff has had ample time to prepare a motion to exclude the expert if appropriate. Plaintiff still has until October 26 to file a dispositive motion if he so chooses.

The Court states once again that no deadline extensions will be given in this case. The Clerk of Court is not authorized to grant any extensions of time.

________________________

HUGH LAWSON , SENIOR JUDGE