Hughes-Rodriguez v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC

N.D. Indiana

Hughes-Rodriguez v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC

DecidedFebruary 18, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-00359

StatusUnknown

This text of Hughes-Rodriguez v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC (Hughes-Rodriguez v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hughes-Rodriguez v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC, (N.D. Ind. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JODI HUGHES-RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:19-cv-00359-HAB-SLC ) CARAVAN FACILITIES ) MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64). In her motion, the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, explains that she believes she has newly discovered evidence that she would like to pursue with the EEOC and that she believes is relevant to her case. Unfortunately, the time for discovery closed on October 7, 2020. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff has not requested nor shown cause to reopen discovery and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is unlikely such a request would be granted given the prejudice to the Defendant. See Schmelzer v. Muncy, 2019 WL 3842335 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2019) (refusing to reopen discovery as it would result in increased costs and burdens to the Defendant); Hess v. Biomet, Inc., 2019 WL 1282032 (N.D. Ind. March 20, 2019) (refusing to permit amended pleadings where discovery has closed and summary judgment proceedings would be disrupted). Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time on the basis set forth in her motion. However, the Court shall provide the Plaintiff an extension of time through and including March 19, 2021 to respond to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on the current state of the record as developed during discovery. Any future extensions requested by the Plaintiff must comply with N.D. Ind. L. R. 6–1. SO ORDERED on February 18, 2021. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JODI HUGHES-RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:19-cv-00359-HAB-SLC ) CARAVAN FACILITIES ) MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64). In her motion, the Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, explains that she believes she has newly discovered evidence that she would like to pursue with the EEOC and that she believes is relevant to her case. Unfortunately, the time for discovery closed on October 7, 2020. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff has not requested nor shown cause to reopen discovery and, at this stage of the proceedings, it is unlikely such a request would be granted given the prejudice to the Defendant. See Schmelzer v. Muncy, 2019 WL 3842335 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2019) (refusing to reopen discovery as it would result in increased costs and burdens to the Defendant); Hess v. Biomet, Inc., 2019 WL 1282032 (N.D. Ind. March 20, 2019) (refusing to permit amended pleadings where discovery has closed and summary judgment proceedings would be disrupted). Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time on the basis set forth in her motion. However, the Court shall provide the Plaintiff an extension of time through and including March 19, 2021 to respond to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment based on the current state of the record as developed during discovery. Any future extensions requested by the Plaintiff must comply with N.D. Ind. L. R. 6–1. SO ORDERED on February 18, 2021. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hughes-Rodriguez v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-rodriguez-v-caravan-facilities-management-llc-innd-2021.