Winns v. Exela Enterprise Solutions Inc

Background

Harris Lee Winns, proceeding without a lawyer, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and the court’s local rules for relief from a nondispositive pretrial order issued by Magistrate Judge Beeler. The challenged order extended the fact-discovery cutoff and required Winns to complete his deposition within 30 days.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a nondispositive pretrial order receives substantial deference. A district court may not simply replace the magistrate judge’s judgment with its own and may set aside factual findings only when it has a firm conviction that a mistake was made.

As a threshold matter, the court noted that motions seeking relief from nondispositive pretrial orders may not exceed five pages. Winns’s motion contained seven pages of text. The court warned him that he must comply with the applicable rules in the future.

The court rejected Winns’s argument that referring discovery matters to a magistrate judge was improper. It stated that federal law permits a district judge to assign pretrial matters to a magistrate judge and that discovery disputes are pretrial matters.

The court also found that the extension of the fact-discovery deadline was proper. The defendant had sought the extension because Winns refused to cooperate with scheduling his deposition, which the court found established good cause for modifying the schedule. The court further held that requiring Winns to attend a deposition was proper because a party may be deposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, subject to the rule’s stated exceptions.

Disposition

Judge Rogers concluded that Judge Beeler’s pretrial order was not clearly erroneous. The court denied Winns’s motion for relief, ordered him to sit for his deposition, and warned that failure to comply with discovery obligations or court orders could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case. The order terminated Docket Number 83.