Henderson v. Atlantic Track and Runway Services, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DAVEVON HENDERSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:23-cv-04078
ATLANTIC TRACK AND RUNWAY
SERVICES, LLC, RICK SWOPE, &
JOHN DUNN 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline.
ECF No. 49. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. 	ECF No. 2. 	On March 26, 2024,
Defendant Atlantic Track and Runway Services, LLC (Defendant “ATRS”) propounded its first
set of discovery requests to Plaintiff. The requests included 20 Interrogatories, 15 Requests for
Production of Documents, and 25 Requests for Admission. Responses to these requests were due
on or before April 25, 2024. ECF No. 46, p. 2. On April 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel requested
a two-week extension of time to provide responses to the discovery. 	Before counsel for
Defendant ATRS could respond to this request for an extension, Plaintiff’s counsel forwarded
responses to Defendant ATRS’s discovery requests. Id.
On May 24, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff sent documents identified as Plaintiff’s Objections
and Responses to Defendant ATR’s First set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. ECF
No. 46, p. 9; ECF No. 45-3. 	On May 30, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff informed ATRS that “we
have been unable to contact or communicate with Plaintiff Henderson for a period of months.”
ECF No. 46-1, p. 3.
Case 4:23-cv-04078-SOH Document 50 Filed 07/19/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On June 6, 2024, Defendant ATRS filed a Moton to Compel and Request for Sanctions
(ECF No. 45) arguing that Plaintiff’s responses to all their discovery requests were “woefully
deficient” containing mostly boilerplate objections and objections which have no legal basis
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 46, p. 3. Defendant ATRS further argued
that sanctions should be imposed against counsel for Plaintiff because they have “abused the
judicial system, engaged in deceptive behavior, and stall[ed] this matter for weeks.” 	ECF No.
46, p. 10.
On July 7, 2024, the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, issued an Order denying Defendant ATRS’s request for sanctions,
but granting its request to compel discovery with respect to all discovery requests submitted to
Plaintiff. 	ECF No. 48. 	Judge Bryant further ordered Plaintiff to fully respond to all discovery
requests at issue on or before July 21, 2024, which is the deadline for discovery in the instant
action. Id.
On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an extension of the discovery
deadline. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff states that he finally responded to his counsel on June 18, 2024,
and offered the following reason for failing to engage in discovery:
due to the “stress of this case, my daughter passing (May 2023), and having to
move (approximately four residential moves across three states since being
stabbed), took a toll on me” and that he had engaged in a voluntary program that
required his participation and presence for 6 months. [Plaintiff] was in the rehab
program for six months and was not available to participate in discovery.
Id. at 2. For this reason, Plaintiff requests a 120-day extension of the discovery deadline.
Upon consideration, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff must provide the Court with proof
of his participation in a rehabilitation program for the past 6 months. Plaintiff must provide this
evidence to the Court on or before July 26, 2024, at which time the Court will make a
Case 4:23-cv-04078-SOH Document 50 Filed 07/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
determination if Plaintiff has shown good cause to warrant an extension of the discovery
deadline.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of July, 2024.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-04078-SOH Document 50 Filed 07/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>