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.

McBee v. Tennessee Valley Authority

January 29, 2007

LAURA KATHERINE MCBEE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BILL BAXTER, CHAIRMAN, AND SKILA HARRIS, DIRECTOR, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge

VARLAN/GUYTON

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Rules of this Court, and by the Order [Doc. 57] of the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States District Judge, for disposition of Plaintiff's Motion for Further Discovery [Doc. 52].

Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 52] asserts that Defendants' Witness List [Doc. 47], filed on January 22, 2007, included ten witnesses recently added by the defendants. Additionally, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter on January 8, 2007, listing other additional witness. The majority of the witnesses are employed by the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA").*fn1 Plaintiff has moved to reopen discovery so that she might be allowed to depose these new witnesses. Defendants responded [Doc. 54] to Plaintiff's Motion, arguing that discovery should not be reopened generally, but that the depositions of Ms. Hodges, Ms. Gray, and Ms. Haney should be allowed by a "date certain." Additionally, Defendants assert that the witnesses are not new, as they were named in Plaintiff's summary judgment response and Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures.

Based upon the entire record in this matter, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 52] to be well-taken. Plaintiff may not access Defendants' new witnesses without further discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Further Discovery [Doc. 52] is GRANTED. As determined in the original Scheduling Order [Doc. 9], "all discovery, including the taking of depositions 'for evidence,' shall be completed by ninety (90) days before trial." Though the discovery cut-off date had expired, a new trial date of July 30, 2007, was recently scheduled. [Doc. 57]. In accordance with this Court's granting of Plaintiff's Motion, the new trial date, and the original Scheduling Order, discovery will be reopened until April 30, 2007.

IT IS SO ...


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.