Matthews v. Methodist Healthcare

S.D. Mississippi

Matthews v. Methodist Healthcare

147 F. Supp. 2d 950, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8723, 2001 WL 708548

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi

DecidedJune 21, 2001

DocketNo. Civ.A. 3:00-CV-638BN

StatusPublished

This text of 147 F. Supp. 2d 950 (Matthews v. Methodist Healthcare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. Methodist Healthcare, 147 F. Supp. 2d 950, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8723, 2001 WL 708548 (S.D. Miss. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

BARBOUR, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the joint motion of the parties to extend discovery deadline, dispositive motion deadline, and to continue trial. The parties agree that discovery has not been completed in this case and that they are not ready for trial. When the parties participated in the case management conference with the magistrate judge, they had the opportunity for input as to when the case should be set for trial and as to when the discovery deadlines should be. That case management order was entered on December 13, 2000. The parties apparently have failed to follow the order. This Court accommodates attorneys whenever reasonable, but must rely on its case management system in order to move cases through the system. If the lawyers do not cooperate with one another in the discovery process, it imposes upon the Court’s schedule to request extensions of time and continuances. If discovery is delayed because of dilatory tactics of one side, it is the duty of the other side to file motions to compel with the magistrate judge, not to ask the trial judge for continuances.

The motion is not well taken and is hereby DENIED.

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

ORDER

BARBOUR, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the joint motion of the parties to extend discovery deadline, dispositive motion deadline, and to continue trial. The parties agree that discovery has not been completed in this case and that they are not ready for trial. When the parties participated in the case management conference with the magistrate judge, they had the opportunity for input as to when the case should be set for trial and as to when the discovery deadlines should be. That case management order was entered on December 13, 2000. The parties apparently have failed to follow the order. This Court accommodates attorneys whenever reasonable, but must rely on its case management system in order to move cases through the system. If the lawyers do not cooperate with one another in the discovery process, it imposes upon the Court’s schedule to request extensions of time and continuances. If discovery is delayed because of dilatory tactics of one side, it is the duty of the other side to file motions to compel with the magistrate judge, not to ask the trial judge for continuances.

The motion is not well taken and is hereby DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 F. Supp. 2d 950, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8723, 2001 WL 708548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-methodist-healthcare-mssd-2001.