IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION 

DONNA DORSEY DAVIS, etc. ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 

 ) 2:06CV766-MHT 

RICHARD M. DORSEY, etc., )

and CD&O, LLC, etc., ) 

 Defendants. ) 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE EXTENTION OF DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

 NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, by and through her attorney of record, Lindsay B. Erwin, 

and does show unto this Honorable Court the following: 

 1. That on the 2nd of April, 2007, Counsel for the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend 

the Discovery Deadline. 

 2. That this Honorable Court denied said Motion for not having contacted the 

Attorney for the Defendant and for failure to explain said circumstances as to the “eleventh 

hour” filing. 

3. Counsel for the Plaintiff acted prudently on the 5th of January, 2007 requesting 

that Counsel for the Defendant make himself and his client available at his convenience for 

depositions at his office. (See Exhibit “A”). 

 4. After numerous phone calls without any response from Counsel for the 

Defendant throughout the month of January, 2007, Counsel for Plaintiff sent another letter on the 

1st of February, 2007 trying to resolve the Discovery issues without Court interference. (See 

Exhibit “B”). 

 5. Counsel for the Plaintiff sent confirmation of the attorneys’ phone conversation 

on the 7th of February, 2007 in which Counsel for the Defendant was to let Counsel know on 

possible dates for said depositions. (See Exhibit “C”). 

 6. It was not until March 13, 2007 that the Deposition of the Defendant, 

Richard M. Dorsey was taken at his attorney’s office in Prattville, Alabama. 

 7. During the deposition of Richard M. Dorsey, Plaintiff learned the names of 

individuals who have information relevant to the Plaintiffs claims and defenses in this matter. 

Furthermore, many documents were requested and agreed to be produced to Counsel for the 

Plaintiff, but such documentation has not been produced as of this date and is critical for the 

depositions of the other non-parties. 

 8. Counsel for the Plaintiff did not receive the depositions of the Plaintiff and the 

Defendant from the reporter until March 19, 2007. 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 27 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
 9. Due to the Plaintiff being located in South Carolina, she has not had the 

opportunity to read and sign her own deposition. 

10. Notice of Depositions for Jo Ann Perry, the book keeper for I-65 Properties, Inc., 

George W. Walthall, the attorney who prepared all documentation regarding the formation of I65 Properties, Inc., and Alan Taunton, the certified public accountant for I-65 Properties, Inc., 

was sent notice on March 30, 2007 for said depositions to take place on April 16, 2007. Said two 

week notice is not prejudicial against the parties involved, and Counsel for Plaintiff will assume 

to go forward even though the request for documents are critical to this case. Notwithstanding 

Counsel’s failure to produce, he had sufficient time and deemed it appropriate to file his Motion 

for Summary Judgment. 

 11. Plaintiff’s counsel can not adequately defend Defendant’s premature Motion for 

Summary Judgment until such time as all relevant information and documentation of discovery 

is complete. 

 12. Counsel for the Plaintiff is newly out of law school, previously running a solo 

practice in Birmingham, Alabama before recently joining the firm of Meacham, Earley & Fowler 

in Columbus, Georgia. Counsel would not consider making excuses before this Court, but said 

relocation in January, 2007 has required Counsel to do extensive traveling between Birmingham 

and Columbus in an effort to wind up her business while still maintaining an on going case load. 

 13. Counsel for the Plaintiff has attempted to contact Counsel for the Defendant 

regarding said continuance but with no avail. Defendant would not be prejudiced in anyway as 

to the extension of the deadline of the Discovery Request. 

14. Furthermore, in no way will the extension of said deadline effect the date of the 

trial in this matter previously set by this Honorable Court. 

 

 WHEREFORE, ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff moves this Honorable 

Court to reconsider the Denial of the Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline and respectfully 

request that the discovery be extend for sixty (60) days to allow Plaintiff conduct other 

depositions to obtain information relevant to this matter. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 //s// Lindsay B. Erwin 

 Lindsay B. Erwin 

 ASB-5299-Y59E 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Meacham, Earley & Fowler, P.C. 

5704 Veterans Parkway 

Columbus, Georgia 31904 

(706) 576-4064 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 27 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the _2__ day of April, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using electronic filing system which will send information of such 

filing to the following: 

 Clifford W. Cleveland 

 Cleveland & Colley, P.C. 

 P.O. Box 680689 

 Prattville, AL 36068 

 James E. Roberts, Esquire 

 4908 Cahaba River Road, Suite 204 

 Birmingham, AL 35243 

 //s// Lindsay B. Erwin 

 OF COUNSEL 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 27 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
LINDSAY B. ERWIN

Attorney at Law 

3516 Vann Road, Suite 114 

Birmingham, Alabama 35235 

(205) 661-6566

January 5, 2007 

Mr. Clifford W. Cleveland, Esq. 

Cleveland & Colley, P.C. 

Post Office Box 680689 

Prattville, Alabama 36068 

RE: Davis v. Dorsey, et al. 

Dear Mr. Cleveland: 

 As you know from the scheduling order, the deadline for discovery is fast 

approaching. I would like to take your client’s deposition at your office and at a time 

that is convenient for you. Please provide me with a list of three dates in which it might 

be possible to schedule the depositions. I will then contact my client in an effort to 

accommodate us all. 

 I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

 Respectfully, 

 

 Lindsay B. Erwin, Esq. 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 27-2 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
February 1, 2007 

Mr. Clifford W. Cleveland 

Cleveland & Colley 

P.O. Box 680689 

Prattville, AL 36068 

Via Fax: 334 365 1601

RE: Davis V. Dorsey 

 Civil Action No. 2:06 CV 766-MHT

Dear Mr. Cleveland, 

 As you are aware from the Uniform Scheduling Order in the above case , the expert’s 

identity and reports are due to be disclosed today. However, due to the inability of having 

depositions scheduled, I respectfully ask for your consent to have the deadline extended. I 

cannot prepare an expert for his testimony without the proper deposition of your client. I do 

expect to have a forensic accountant inspect all records and a valid appraiser make an expert 

appraisal of the property. 

 Furthermore, I have called your office and sent a letter of January 5, 2007, requesting 

a date on which your client could be deposed. At this time, I will go forward with the filing 

of a Notice of Deposition to be taken in Birmingham, Alabama within the next couple of 

weeks. 

 It has come to my attention, that there may be a conflict in your representation of Mr. 

Dorsey in this matter. Seeing as how you are a member of the Board of Directors of I65 

Properties, Inc., I do not know, as of yet, the extent of your involvement in this matter. This 

letter is to give you notice of the potential liability of a conflict and your future involvement 

with this suit. 

 I will have all discovery requests to Mr. Dorsey by next week. Please let’s work 

together in an effort to move this suit along properly so as to the Scheduling Order so that the 

Court’s involvement will be minimal. 

 I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

 Respectfully, 

 Meacham, Earley & Fowler, P.C. 

 Lindsay B. Erwin 

cc: Mrs. Donna Davis 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 27-3 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
February 7, 2007 

Mr. Clifford W. Cleveland 

Cleveland & Colley 

P.O. Box 680689 

Prattville, AL 36068 

Via Fax: 334 365 1601

RE: Davis V. Dorsey 

 Civil Action No. 2:06 CV 766-MHT

Dear Mr. Cleveland, 

 This letter is in response to our conversation on February 1, 2007. I have been informed 

that you had been nominated as a Board Member but declined such position so there will be no 

conflict in you continuing to represent Dick Dorsey. 

 It is my understanding that we will extend the expert witness list to after depositions have 

been completed. You will be checking with your client on or about the week of February 19, 

2007, and get back with me on some possible dates and times upon which we could hold the 

depositions at your office. 

 I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

 Respectfully, 

 Meacham, Earley & Fowler, P.C. 

 Lindsay B. Erwin 

Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 27-4 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 1