DAVIS v. MARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
1:24-cv-01918
| S.D. Ind. | Sep 2, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff Yvonne L. Davis sued defendants including Marion County Superior Court Juvenile Detention Center; defendants moved to extend discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines (Dkt. 69).
- Discovery opened January 2, 2025; defendants did not serve any discovery until May 9, 2025 (127 days after opening).
- Plaintiff served responses on June 9, 2025; parties missed a July 7 discovery report and defendants first raised the dispute at a July 9 status conference.
- The Court held a discovery conference, ordered briefing, and resolved a motion to compel within 28 days.
- The Court found defendants’ delay in serving discovery and in timely raising the dispute, not solely plaintiff’s response timing, caused the scheduling problems and concluded defendants lacked good cause for the requested 60-day extension.
- The Court denied the motion but sua sponte revised the Case Management Plan with new, shorter deadlines (e.g., liability discovery by Oct 10, 2025; dispositive-motion schedule with deadlines through Jan 12, 2026) and barred further enlargements.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant a 60-day extension of liability discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines | Davis: she responded June 9; any delay attributable to defendants' late service of discovery | Defs: need 60 days because Plaintiff delayed fully responding to May 9 discovery | Denied — no good cause; defendants delayed serving discovery and raising their dispute; court set shorter new deadlines sua sponte |
Key Cases Cited
- Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153 (7th Cir. 1996) (judicial expectation that deadlines will be honored)
- United States v. Golden Elevator, Inc., 27 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 1994) (ignoring deadlines undermines litigation process)
- Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Baltes, 15 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 1994) (parties may not adopt self-created scheduling rules)
- Finwall v. City of Chicago, 239 F.R.D. 494 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (expert exclusion for missed disclosure deadlines; courts enforce discovery schedules)
- Reales v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 84 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 1996) (trial courts have duty to manage caseloads and enforce deadlines)
- Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec, Inc., 866 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1988) (standard for "clearly erroneous" described colorfully by the court)