United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division
GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Libby held a pre-motion and
status conference addressing the latest disputes that had
arisen regarding the completion of discovery and
Defendant's intention to seek an additional extension of
the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines. The
Magistrate Judge ruled on the record that he would not grant
the deadline extensions that Defendant sought.
response, Defendant filed three substantive motions: (1) a
motion to compel (D.E. 135) addressed to the Magistrate Judge
seeking to compel additional discovery after the deadline or
to prohibit Plaintiffs from offering certain evidence; (2) a
motion for reconsideration (D.E. 136) addressed to the
Magistrate Judge regarding the August 21, 2019 ruling; and
(3) an objection (D.E. 138) addressed to this Court, asking
this Court to reverse the Magistrate Judge's ruling. On
August 29, 2019, in a detailed opinion, the Magistrate Judge
denied the motion to compel, denied reconsideration, and
recommended that this Court deny the objection. D.E. 151.
before the Court are the following:
“Defendant's Motion Objecting to the Magistrate
Judge's Denial of Request for an Extension of Time”
(the objection, D.E. 138);
o Plaintiffs response (D.E. 145);
o Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply (D.E. 152);
■ Plaintiffs response (D.E. 153);
• Defendant's Motion to Expedite the objection (D.E.
• Defendant's Motion to Stay (D.E. 154) pending this
Court's decision on the objection and any resulting
• Defendant's Motion to Expedite (D.E. 155)
consideration of the motion to stay.
Court GRANTS the motions to expedite (D.E. 139, 155) and
GRANTS the motion for leave to file a reply (D.E. 152). The
Court DENIES the motion objecting to the Magistrate
Judge's Order (D.E. 138) and the motion to stay (D.E.
has set a standard for the United States district courts that
cases should be resolved within three years of filing. 28
U.S.C. § 476(a)(3). This case was originally filed on
March 16, 2017. D.E. 1. After vigorous class certification
proceedings, the Court entered a scheduling order on January
8, 2019, setting this action for trial on January 13, 2020.
D.E. 98. The discovery deadline was initially July 12, 2019,
and the dispositive motions deadline was July 18, 2019. Both
of those deadlines were extended to August 22, 2019, in
response to a joint motion. D.E. 126, 127. However, the Court
signaled its concern for the timely resolution of this case
by refusing to extend the dispositive motion deadline to
September 16, 2019, as requested in the motion.
Court reviews Defendant's challenge to the Magistrate
Judge's ruling using a standard of review that requires
Defendant to show that any findings of fact are clearly
erroneous and/or any conclusions of law are contrary to the
law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d
382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Defendant filed its
objection before the Magistrate Judge entered his written
opinion on Defendant's motion for reconsideration, its