Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Curry v. M-I, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division

September 4, 2019

MITCHELL CURRY, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
M-I, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          NELVA GONZALES RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On 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.

         In 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.

         Now 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. 139);
• Defendant's Motion to Stay (D.E. 154) pending this Court's decision on the objection and any resulting appeal; and
• Defendant's Motion to Expedite (D.E. 155) consideration of the motion to stay.

         The 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. 154).

         Congress 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.

         The 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 complaints ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.