Hails v. Dennis, 1:17-00259-KD-N. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20191206992
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant Timothy Trent Dennis' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose (Docs. 130, 131). Defendant's Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED. See Introduction to Civil Discovery Practice in the Southern District of Alabama at 8 (5/13/2019). 1 It is ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference, setting (and all related deadlines) remains scheduled for Decembe
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant Timothy Trent Dennis' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose (Docs. 130, 131). Defendant's Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED. See Introduction to Civil Discovery Practice in the Southern District of Alabama at 8 (5/13/2019). 1 It is ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference, setting (and all related deadlines) remains scheduled for December..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Timothy Trent Dennis' Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion to Reopen Discovery for a Limited Purpose (Docs. 130, 131). Defendant's Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED. See Introduction to Civil Discovery Practice in the Southern District of Alabama at 8 (5/13/2019).1 It is ORDERED that the Final Pretrial Conference, setting (and all related deadlines) remains scheduled for December 18, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. Defendant's Motion to Strike will be carried to the Final Pretrial Conference.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. https://www.alsd.uscourts.gov/attorney-information. Southern District Discovery Practice includes in part, the following:
The parties may conduct discovery (primarily taking depositions) by agreement after the discovery cut-off; however, lawyers should be aware that if problems arise during such depositions (such as instructions not to answer questions or failure to produce documents at a deposition), the Court may refuse involvement because the depositions are being taken after the discovery cut-off and without the Court's permission. However, parties who agree to engage in discovery after the cut-off should do so in good faith and not use the passing of the cut-off as an excuse for obstructive behavior.
Source: Leagle
