Admirev.Strain

United States District Court, E.D. LouisianaFeb 7, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0579, SECTION "K"(4) (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2008)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0579, SECTION "K"(4).

February 7, 2008


ORDER AND OPINION


STANWOOD DUVAL JR., District Judge

Before the Court are plaintiff's motion to extend discovery cutoff dates (Doc. 63) and motion to continue the hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment until February 20, 2008 (Doc. 75). Having reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, and relevant law, the Court, for the reasons assigned, denies both motions.

Plaintiff seeks an extension of the January 22, 2008, discovery deadline in order to take the depositions of Donna Schlesinger, the director of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office ("STPSO") Human Resources Department, Brett Hardaker, a trainer with the STPSO, and Billy Golden, also a trainer with the STPSO. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Schlesinger needs to be deposed because Captain Tim Lentz, the STPSO's representative for the 30(b)(6) deposition, who was deposed on January 15, 2008, failed to provide information concerning plaintiff's personnel employment file and discrimination complaints lodged against the STPSO between 2002 and the present. As for the depositions of Deputy Hardaker and Deputy Golden, plaintiff contends that those deposition are necessary as a result of "testimony of defense witnesses learned in the last round of depositions taken on January 15, 2008."

The identify of each of the witnesses sought to be deposed by plaintiff's counsel has been known to plaintiff at all times since the events giving rise to plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff urges that each of the depositions for which she seeks an extension is necessary due to events occurring during or information learned during various depositions on January 15, 2008, a mere week before the expiration of the discovery deadline. Had all discovery in this matter been conducted in a more timely manner, an extension would not be necessary. The Court acknowledges plaintiff's status as a solo practitioner, but notes that there has been more than ample time to conduct the necessary discovery in this case. In fact, almost a year elapsed between the reopening of this case and the discovery deadline. Plaintiff's counsel has not established good cause for the extension of the discovery deadline.

Moreover, extending the discovery deadline would require a continuance of the hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment until such time as the depositions were completed and the parties had an opportunity to bring to the Court's attention any evidence in the depositions pertinent to the motion for summary judgment. Because the trial in this matter is scheduled for March 10, 2008, the Court is unable to delay consideration of the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to extend the discovery cutoff dates filed on behalf of plaintiff is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to continue the hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed on behalf of plaintiff is DENIED.