WILLIAMS v. CHATMAN, CV412-106. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20151002n27
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Stay Pleading Schedule or, in the Alternative, For an Additional Thirty Days to File a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 44.) Petitioner requests additional time to reply because his counsel is preparing for briefing and oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit. 1 After careful consideration, Petitioner's request for an extension is GRANTED. As a result, Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hear
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Stay Pleading Schedule or, in the Alternative, For an Additional Thirty Days to File a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 44.) Petitioner requests additional time to reply because his counsel is preparing for briefing and oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit. 1 After careful consideration, Petitioner's request for an extension is GRANTED. As a result, Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary heari..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Stay Pleading Schedule or, in the Alternative, For an Additional Thirty Days to File a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 44.) Petitioner requests additional time to reply because his counsel is preparing for briefing and oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit.1 After careful consideration, Petitioner's request for an extension is GRANTED. As a result, Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing is due no later than November 2, 2015. Petitioner should be aware that the Court will grant no further extensions in regards to this filing. All other deadlines provided in the scheduling order (Doc. 26) remain unchanged.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that Petitioner requested a stay of the pleading schedule because Petitioner had filed a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 44) this Court's July 26, 2013 and September 3, 2015 orders denying discovery. (Doc. 35, Doc. 42.) Petitioner stated that the Court "contemplated" a motion for reconsideration and should therefore further extend the filing deadlines. However, Petitioner's characterization of the Court's order is inaccurate. The Court did not invite a motion for reconsideration of its previous orders on discovery. Instead, the Court merely noted that a motion for reconsideration would be timely if such motion was filed after the Court's entering of its September order addressing discovery. (Doc. 35 at 15.)
Source: Leagle
