Harriston v. Target Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-02795
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Chambers of 101 West Lombard Street George L. Russell, III Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Chief United States District Judge 410-962-4055

February 4, 2025

MEMORANDUM TO PARTIES RE: Harriston et al v. Target Corporation et al Civil Action No. GLR-23-2795

Dear Parties:

Today, the Court convened a hearing in this case. This memorandum memorializes what occurred during the hearing.

The Court has referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Austin for a mediation that is scheduled for May 28, 2025. The parties shall submit a joint status report within seven days of the mediation informing the Court of whether the mediation was successful. If the mediation is successful, the parties shall submit a notice of dismissal. If the mediation is not successful, the parties shall submit a joint status report within seven days of the mediation again answering the seven points and including a joint proposed scheduling order.

The Court will approve the parties’ requested changes to the Scheduling Order:

I. DEADLINES

February 14, 2025 Moving for joinder of additional parties and amendment of pleadings

August 8, 2025 Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures

August 20, 2025 Defendant’s Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures

August 29, 2025 Plaintiff’s rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures

August 30, 2025 Rule 26(e)(2) supplementation of disclosures and responses; fact discovery deadline; submission of status report

September 8, 2025: Requests for admission

October 22, 2025 Dispositive pretrial motions deadline

60 days following the Court’s ruling on Expert Discovery Deadline summary judgment Having considered the parties’ reasonable request, the Court allocates 25 deposition hours per side.

To the extent the need arises, the parties may hire experts to assist with production of electronically stored information.

Expert discovery is deferred until after summary judgment motions are resolved. The parties shall submit a status report upon completion of fact discovery.

Additionally, for the reasons stated on the record, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 126) because Ciara Harriston has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances as outlined in Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 247 (4th Cir. 2024). The Court cannot conclude at this time that Ciara Harriston has a colorable claim nor that the claims presented are so complex that Plaintiff cannot present it. Id. The Court further determined that Ciara Harriston has not presented indigency status that is sufficient to necessitate the appointment of counsel.

At the hearing, Plaintiff Charissa Harriston moved to be voluntarily dismissed from this matter without prejudice. The Court will GRANT the motion and DIRECT the clerk to DISMISS Charissa Harriston WITHOUT prejudice.

Despite the informal nature of this memorandum, it shall constitute an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it accordingly. Defense counsel are instructed to email a copy of this Order to Ciara Harriston’s email on record.

Very truly yours,

/s/ George L. Russell, III Chief United States District Judge