IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MAXIE MCNABB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv664-MHT

)

SANDERS LEAD COMPANY, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

COMES NOW, Defendant Sanders Lead Company, Inc., by and through the

undersigned counsel of record, and does hereby respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. In response thereto, Defendant

states the following:

1. Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order that was entered December 4th,

2006, “[a]ll discovery shall be completed on or before June 29, 2007".

2. That date was derived from the Report of the Parties’ Planning Meeting filed

with this Court.

3. The discovery deadline was agreed to last year by both the counsel for the

Plaintiff and the counsel for the Defendant.

4. Plaintiff and his counsel have known or should have known about all the

deadlines in the Court’s order for many months now.

5. Until the time Defendant filed its’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff had

only sent one set of interrogatories and requests for production, which

Defendant responded to in the appropriate time.

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 16 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
6. In mid-April of 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel

regarding dates to depose potential witnesses.

7. Defendant’s counsel responded with dates in early to mid-May, yet no

notices were sent by the Plaintiff or his counsel and nothing else was said

about depositions until this week. 

8. It is clear to the Defendant that this is the exact “eleventh hour” extension

request this Court discussed in its’ Uniform Scheduling Order.

9. There is nothing in Plaintiff’s motion that would amount to “unforeseen and

unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the movant” that this Court

requires in order for a request for an extension to be granted. 

10. Every stated reason given by Plaintiff’s counsel as to why he needs this

extension is completely foreseeable and could have been avoided with

proper planning and due diligence.

WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests

that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension

of Time.

Respectfully submitted this the 11th day of June, 2007.

s/ N.J. Cervera 

N.J. Cervera (CER001)

s/ Frank P. Ralph 

Frank P. Ralph (RAL002)

s/ Grady A. Reeves 

Grady A. Reeves (REE042)

s/ Matthew M. Baker 

Matthew M. Baker (BAK017)

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 16 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
OF COUNSEL:

CERVERA, RALPH, & REEVES, LLC

914 South Brundidge Street

P.O. Box 325

Troy, Alabama 36081

phone (334) 566-0116

fax (334) 566-4073

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

listed below by CMF/Electronic Mail and/or by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage

prepaid and properly addressed to:

Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.

WINSTON COOKS, LLC

The Penick Building

319 17th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

this the 11th day of June, 2007.

s/ N.J. Cervera 

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 16 Filed 06/11/2007 Page 3 of 3