IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAXIE MCNABB, )

)

Plaintiff ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 

) 2:06-0664-MHT

v. )

)

SANDERS LEAD COMPANY, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Maxie McNabb, in the above styled cause of action, by and

through his undersigned counsel of record, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and hereby notifies the Court and respectfully seeks the Court’s approval of the Plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Time in which to file his response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and to complete discovery in the above styled case. As grounds for this motion the

Plaintiff would state as follows:

1. Pursuant to the Court’s original Scheduling Order, discovery is due in this case by

June 29, 2007. 

2. On January 17, 2007, the Plaintiff served Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories and Request

for Production of Documents on the Defendant, to which the Defendant has responded. 

3. On April 26, 2007, the Defendant served the Plaintiff with Defendant’s First

Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, which were due by May 29, 2007.

4. On May 25, 2007, the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment

accompanied by a Memorandum of Law in Support of same. On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff asked

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

for and received a two-week extension within which to tender the discovery requested by the

Defendant. 

5. On May 31, 2007, this Court ordered that any response to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment must be submitted by June 18, 2007. The Plaintiff will not be able to comply

with this deadline as Plaintiff’s counsel has scheduling conflicts which will interfere with his ability

to take depositions he needs to respond to the Defendant’s motion and to draft a response within the

allotted time. 

 6. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel has the following conflicts: an Eleventh Circuit

Mediation on June 8, 2007 in Matthews v. City of Dothan, 07-10409-FF, depositions scheduled in

Chicago, Illinois on June 13, 2007 in Dean v. City of Harvey, 05-CV-2454, a deposition scheduled

on June 19, 2007 in Holified v. Embassy Suites Hotel, CV-06-PWG-4721-S, and depositions

scheduled on June 26 & 27, 2007 in Chapman v. Imerys, Inc., CV-1:06-01972-VEH. 

7. On June 4, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel discussed with Defendant’s counsel whether

the Defendant opposed the grant of such a motion. Defendant’s counsel at that time expressed that

they did not want to consent to such a motion but that they would probably not file a formal

opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel then inquired as to what the Defendant could agree to put in his

motion and was instructed that he could only state that the parties had conferred, which is what

Plaintiff’s counsel did.

8. On June 7, 2007, this Court issued an order denying the Plaintiff’s motion because

it did not state whether counsel for all other parties agreed or disagreed with the grant of such an

extension. 

9. On June 7, 2007, the Plaintiff again called and emailed Defendant’s counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

regarding the extension issue and the Court’s order. This time Defendant’s counsel affirmatively

stated that they opposed the grant of such an extension. Plaintiff’s counsel is now renewing his

request that this Court grant Plaintiff an extension within which to complete discovery and respond

to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

10. Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Courts may, for

cause shown, order an enlargement of a period within which an act is required to be performed if the

request is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed. Farrington v. Benjamin,

100 F.R.D. 474 (D.V.I. 1984). An application under Rule 6(b)(1) is normally granted in the absence

of bad faith or prejudice to the adverse party. Keoheler v. Dodwell, 215 F.3d 1319, 2000 WL

709578 (4th Cir. 2000). 

11. The Plaintiff has not been dilatory in prosecuting his case and is not requesting this

extension to delay or misuse the Court’s time. Additionally, this request is being made before the

expiration date set by the Court for the Plaintiff to file his response to the Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment and before the expiration of the discovery deadline. Furthermore, no prejudice

will inure to the Defendant. 

12. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court

grant him a thirty day extension of time in which to complete discovery and file his response to

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, up to and including July 30, 2007. If the Court is not

inclined to extend the discovery period, Plaintiff requests an additional fourteen days up to and

including July 2, 2007 in which to file his response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Roderick T. Cooks

Attorney for the Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

WINSTON COOKS, LLC

The Penick Building

319-17th Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

Tel: (205)502-0970

Fax: (205)251-0231

email: rcooks@winstoncooks.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on all persons listed

below by CMF/Electronic Mail and/or U. S. Mail, postage prepaid and addressed to them as follows:

Matthew M. Baker, Esq.

Cervera, Ralph & Reeves, LLC

P.O. Box 325

914 South Brundidge Street

Troy, Alabama 36081

(334) 566-0116

(334) 566-4703 fax

Done this the 7th day of June, 2007.

s/Roderick T. Cooks

Of Counsel 

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 14 Filed 06/07/2007 Page 4 of 4