Filed: Dec. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . In light of Plaintiff Dean Gillispie's Motion for Leave to Disclose Additional Expert Report (Doc. 283), the Court refers this case back to Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington for purposes of addressing that discovery-related motion. Additionally, as the parties are aware, the Court has received motions for summary judgment from Defendants Richard Wolfe (Doc. 171), Matthew Scott Moore (Doc. 257), and City of Miami Township (Doc. 260). Those motions a
Summary: ORDER THOMAS M. ROSE , District Judge . In light of Plaintiff Dean Gillispie's Motion for Leave to Disclose Additional Expert Report (Doc. 283), the Court refers this case back to Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington for purposes of addressing that discovery-related motion. Additionally, as the parties are aware, the Court has received motions for summary judgment from Defendants Richard Wolfe (Doc. 171), Matthew Scott Moore (Doc. 257), and City of Miami Township (Doc. 260). Those motions ar..
More
ORDER
THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge.
In light of Plaintiff Dean Gillispie's Motion for Leave to Disclose Additional Expert Report (Doc. 283), the Court refers this case back to Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington for purposes of addressing that discovery-related motion.
Additionally, as the parties are aware, the Court has received motions for summary judgment from Defendants Richard Wolfe (Doc. 171), Matthew Scott Moore (Doc. 257), and City of Miami Township (Doc. 260). Those motions are now fully briefed, although Plaintiff recently filed a "Motion to Strike New Summary Judgment Materials Filed for the First Time in Reply" (Doc. 284).
The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the briefing on the motions for summary judgment. As Plaintiff recognized in his motion for an extension of time to respond to Miami Township's and Moore's motions for summary judgment (Doc. 263), the motions for summary judgment present a "myriad of issues" and "such nuanced legal authorities as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. . .and the Ohio state public official immunity statutes." As Miami Township has noted, delays in dispositive motion briefing can lead to a situation where "the Court can make no guarantee that it will rule on such [a dispositive] motion far in advance of the trial date" and "[t]he closer such a decision falls to the trial date, the more likely all parties will have to incur fees and costs in preparation for a trial that may not go forward if Defendants are ultimately granted summary judgment." (Doc. 264 at PAGEID # 8721-22.) Also, as Moore has noted, "[t]he final pre-trial is scheduled for February 19, 20[20] and a substantial portion of the trial preparations, including the exchange of exhibits and filing of motions in limine are due in advance of the final pre-trial." (Doc. 265 at PAGEID # 8726.)
Therefore, although this case has been pending for quite some time and despite the presumption that all parties would like to resolve the matter as soon as possible, the Court vacates the current case schedule in light of the voluminous briefing and issues presented in the motions for summary judgment, the abbreviated time frame for ruling on those motions (see Docs. 263 and 268), the dispute concerning Plaintiff's additional expert report, and the Court's obligations in other cases. After ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment, the Court will issue a new case schedule, including new dates for the Final Pretrial Conference and Trial, if appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The remaining dates in the current case schedule (see Docs. 129 and 186) are VACATED;
2. The case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington for purposes of addressing Plaintiff Dean Gillispie's Motion for Leave to Disclose Additional Expert Report (Doc. 283); and
3. If appropriate after it has ruled on the pending motions for summary judgment (Docs. 171, 257, and 260), the Court will issue a new case schedule—including a new trial date.
DONE and ORDERED.
