Harry et al v. Gainous, No. 1:2010cv00130 - Document 37 (M.D. Ga. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER denying 29 Omnibus Motion Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 to Include Subparts A-E.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 3/29/2013 (bcl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harry et al v. Gainous Doc. 37 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E MID D LE D ISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBAN Y D IVISION ANGELA HARRY, individually : an d as next of frien d of J .H., a m inor, : : Plain tiffs, : : v. : : TIM GAINOUS, : : Defen dan t. : : CASE NO.: 1:10 -CV-130 (WLS) ORD ER Before th e Court is what Plain tiff titled as an “Omn ibus Motion Pursuan t to Local Rule 7.1 to In clude: Subparts A-E.” (Doc. 29.) The Motion is comprised of a motion for en largem en t of time for discovery an d other deadlin es; a motion for leave to amen d complain t; a motion to compel an d for san ction s; motion for leave to depose Ricky Dewayn e Reyn olds; an d a motion for th e court to hold a hearin g on discovery of men tal h ealth records for Reyn olds. (Id. at 1.) Because Plain tiff h as failed to comply with the Court’s deadlines an d rules, Plaintiff’s Om nibus Motion an d its subparts are D EN IED . PROCED U RAL an d FACTU AL BACKGROU N D Th is case has been around a lon g time. An gela Harry, in dividually an d as n ext frien d of J .H., a min or, filed the first complain t in this case on September 29, 20 10 . (Doc. 1.) The complain t alleges that Defen dan t Tim Gain ous, the jail admin istrator for the Grady Coun ty Sh eriff’s Departmen t, is liable for th e wron gful death of Wade Harry, a pretrial detain ee in th e Grady Coun ty J ail, un der 42 U.S.C. § 1983 an d Georgia law. Plain tiff claims Gain ous h as a policy of min imizin g cost at th e Grady Coun ty J ail. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Because of that, the jail housed violen t inmates close to n on violen t misdemean or offen ders, such as Harry, an d did n ot keep prescription medication s on hand. Th ese conditions allegedly created a perfect storm . On August 21, 20 0 9, Ricky Dewayne Reynolds—a convicted felon with paranoid schizophrenia an d a twen ty-year history of violen t crim e—attacked an d killed Harry while experien cin g h allucin ation s. Accordin g to th e Complain t, Reyn olds’s attack was un provoked. And, before it occurred, Reyn olds h ad allegedly requested Risperidon e, a prescription medication used to treat sch izoph ren ia, but the jail did n ot stock or fill h is prescription because Gain ous wan ted to keep costs low. The discovery h as been on goin g for som e tim e. Th e Court en tered a Sch edulin g an d Discovery Order on J anuary 1, 20 11. (Doc. 11.) It provided th at fact discovery should be com pleted by August 1, 20 11. (Id. at 2.) Neverth eless, th e Parties, often join tly, h ave moved to exten d th e deadlin e to complete discovery n o less than six times. (Docs. 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 27.) After th e fourth request for exten sion , th e Court en tered an Order gran tin g th e request but advisin g th at th e Court will gran t n o further exten sion, except to avoid manifest in justice based upon timely written motion for good cause sh own n ot reason ably foreseeable or reason ably avoidable by th e m ovin g party(ies). Th e parties are ORD ERED to fully an d timely cooperate so as to complete discovery in the amended time limits allotted. (Doc. 22.) Sin ce th en , Plain tiff m oved twice to am en d the discovery order. (Docs. 23, 27.) In th e majority of these motion s, the Parties h ave requested exten sion because of their “heavy litigation schedules.” (E.g., Doc. 23.) The Court gran ted these requests. (Docs. 26, 28.) The last order exten ded discovery un til J anuary 15, 20 13. (Doc. 28.) On J un e 14, 20 11, n on party Behavioral Health Services of South Georgia (“BHS”) appeared in this case to quash a subpoen a for Reyn olds’s m en tal health records. (Doc. 2 12.) BHS claimed that th e health records were privileged un der Georgia an d federal law an d Plain tiff had n ot made the proper assuran ces to keep the records con fiden tial. Plain tiff did n ot respon d to the motion to quash, an d the Court gran ted it. (Doc. 13.) On February 1, 20 13, several weeks after the close of discovery, Plain tiff filed th e in stan t “Omn ibus Motion .” (Doc. 29.) The om n ibus motion con tain s five subparts, m ostly com prised of discovery m otions. In addition to seekin g more time for discovery, Plain tiff filed a motion to compel certain jailers to disclose their con versation s with defen se counsel. Plain tiff filed the motion to compel more than twen ty-on e days after th e alleged violation an d failed to include a certificate of good faith. For the first time, Plain tiff also moves the Court to gran t leave to depose Reyn olds because he is in carcerated, presum ably at Augusta State Medical Prison . Furth erm ore, Plain tiff requests a hearin g on the discovery on Reyn olds’s m en tal health records. D ISCU SSION I. Mo tio n to Co m p e l Plain tiff moves to compel certain jailers to an swer unspecified question s durin g the deposition s about conversations with defense counsel. Defendan t opposes this m otion in part because th e motion falls outside th e Court’s twen ty-on e-day deadlin e for motion s to compel, set forth in th e Court’s Schedulin g an d Discovery Order. Th e Court agrees. Th e Court’s J an uary 19, 20 11 sch edulin g order provided that: Un less exten ded by the Court upon a showin g of good cause by either party upon written motion , all motions to compel discovery shall be filed with in twen ty-on e (21) days of the date on which the response(s) was due or twen ty-on e (21) days of receipt of an allegedly in adequate response, an d n ot later than twen ty-on e (21) days after the close of discovery, whichever first occurs. 3 (Doc. 11 at 2.) Th e purpose, as th e Court explain ed at th e Discovery Con feren ce, of th e 21-21-21 Rule, is to allow th e parties tim e to cooperate an d resolve discovery disputes without th e Court’s in terven tion , an d in th e even t of failure, to presen t un resolved issues to the Court n ear the time of occurren ce to preven t stale disputes from unduly affectin g oth er discovery or com plicate later un related discovery disputes. As the Order states an d the Court explain ed at the con feren ce, the Court exten ds the twen ty-on e-day win dow wh en a party m akes a tim ely request for an exten sion upon a showin g of good cause. This case illustrates the wisdom of that rule. Plaintiff claim s six witn esses on J anuary 9, 20 13, refused to an swer question s about what defen se coun sel told th em durin g a previous meetin g. Plain tiff filed th e in stan t motion more than twen ty-on e days after th e alleged in adequate respon ses. If the Court gran ted the motion to compel, presum ably th e Parties would n eed to re-depose all of these witn esses—requirin g th e Court to exten d the discovery deadlin e yet again an d makin g every witn ess reappear for a secon d time. Th is error is furth er com poun ded by Plain tiff‘s failures to include a m em orandum of auth orities an d a certificate that sh e tried to resolve th e dispute in good faith. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) un am biguously explain s a m otion to com pel “must include a certification that the m ovant h as in good faith conferred or attempted to con fer with th e person or party failin g to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it with out court action .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Furth er, Local Rule 7.1 requires parties to in clude m em oran dum s of law with th eir m otion s. L.R. 7.1. Federal Rule 37, combin ed with th e Court’s 21-21-21 rule, en courages parties to resolve discovery disputes without the Court’s in terven tion . When parties n eed th e Court’s 4 in volvemen t, th e Court expects th e issues to be succinctly stated with supportin g auth ority. Plain tiff complied with n on e of these rules. The motion falls outside of the deadlin e, it lacks a certificate, an d Plain tiff did not both er to cite to a sin gle source of bindin g authority. Furtherm ore, Plaintiff did not m ove to extend th e deadline. As a result, th e in stan t motion presen ts an un timely discovery dispute on a vague disagreemen t th at requires th e Court to in depen den tly research Plain tiff’s claims. Plain tiff’s Motion to Compel is D EN IED . II. Mo tio n to Am e n d Co m p lain t Plain tiff also moves to amen d th e complaint. In support of th is motion , Plain tiff claim s good cause is sh own to exten d the schedulin g an d discovery order because sh e discovered n ew facts durin g discovery. Furtherm ore, Plain tiff argues the amen dm en ts will n ot cause undue prejudice. Th e Court agrees with Defen dan t th at Plain tiff h as n ot sh own good cause. Th e Scheduling an d Discovery Order in this case set the deadline to am en d pleadings as April 15, 20 11. Alm ost two years h ave elapsed since that deadline. Accordin gly, because th e motion falls far outside the sch edulin g deadlin e, plain tiff must make a good cause sh owin g to m odify th e order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Sosa v. Airprin t Sy s., In c., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). Furtherm ore, “[t]his good cause stan dard precludes modification un less th e sch edule ‘can n ot be met despite th e diligen ce of the party seekin g exten sion .’” Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1418 (quotin g Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory committee’s n ote). Plain tiff claim s she m ade a showin g of good cause because she discovered n ew facts durin g th e J anuary 9, 20 13 deposition s and wan ts to in clude th em in a second amen ded 5 com plaint.1 The problem with this showin g is that it does n ot explain wh y Plain tiff could n ot h ave discovered th ese facts before th e deadlin e with due diligen ce. The Court h as exten ded the discovery deadlin e six times. The excuse of havin g a heavy litigation sch edule does n ot absolve Plain tiff of focusing th e issues within th e set-forth deadlin es. Plain tiff h as n ot made an y other showin g th at persuades th e Court she has been diligen t about discoverin g th e relevan t facts in this case. Accordin gly, the Motion to Am en d is D EN IED . III. Mo tio n fo r En la rge m e n t o f Tim e fo r D is co ve ry, Mo tio n fo r Le a ve to D e p o s e Ricky D e w a yn e Re yn o ld s , a n d Mo tio n fo r Co u rt to H o ld H e a rin g fo r Dis co ve ry o f Me n ta l H e a lth Re co rds o f Ricky De w a yn e Re yn o ld s Plain tiff also requests an exten sion of the time for discovery, leave of the court to depose Reyn olds, an d a hearin g on whether they can obtain his men tal health records. Defen dan t opposes th e exten sion because Plain tiff h as not shown excusable n eglect for failin g to m ove for discovery durin g the discovery phase and because they did n ot respon d to BHS’s motion to quash. Regardless of wh eth er Plain tiff has shown “excusable n eglect” for h er failure to tim ely m ove to en large discovery,2 see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), the Court finds Plain tiff has not shown good cause to am en d the Scheduling an d Discovery Order un der Rule 16(b)(4). This is con sisten t with the Court’s fin din g on Plain tiff’s Motion to Am en d. Again , the Court h as en larged the time for discovery six times. The fact that Plain tiff is n ow movin g to depose an allegedly key witn ess for th e first time—after the close of discovery—is in excusable. As Defen dan t poin ts out, th e purported heart attack of This explanation is obviously not the entire story. In addition to adding new facts, the am ended complaint also contains a brand-new request for attorney fees. Plaintiff made no attempt to show why they should be excused for failing to add that claim before the expiration of the tim e to am end. 2 But the Court does add that Plaintiff m ade no attem pt to explain her failure to tim ely move to enlarge the discovery. 1 6 Plain tiff’s expert is n ot groun ds for exten ding th e discovery deadlin e because Plain tiff allegedly failed to m ake tim ely expert disclosures. Furth ermore, Behavioral Health Services moved to quash the subpoen a for th e very sam e records on J un e 14, 20 11. (Doc. 12.) Plain tiff did n ot respon d to that m otion . (See Docket.) Because Plain tiff failed to comply with Rule 45 of th e Federal Rules an d did n ot bother respon din g to the motion to quash, the Court quashed the subpoen a. Plain tiff n ever attempted to subm it a proper subpoen a or timely move the Court to issue an order on the m edical records. Th erefore, Plain tiff’s Motion for En largem en t of Tim e for Discovery an d oth er Deadlin es, Motion for Leave to Depose Ricky Dewayn e Reyn olds, an d Motion for Court to Hold Hearin g for Discovery are all D EN IED . CON CLU SION Based on the foregoin g, Plain tiff’s Om n ibus Motion (Doc. 29) an d all of its subparts are D EN IED . SO ORD ERED , this 29 th day of March 20 13. / s/ W. Louis Sands TH E H ON ORABLE W . LOU IS SAN D S, U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
