UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

_______________________________________

)

ALMA T. MCBROOM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-767-MEF

)

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________ )

DEFENDANT AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SCHEDULING ORDER

Defendant American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (“APWU”) respectfully requeststhat the

Court reconsider the dates set forth in the Uniform Scheduling Order (“Scheduling Order”) (Docket No.

52) in order to accommodate and correspond with the plaintiff’s extended deadline to respond to the

APWU’s initial dispositive motion filed on February 20, 2007. (Docket Entry Nos. 40-43). This

postponement is necessary to prevent the anomaly of having the plaintiff’s response to the APWU’s

pending Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment due later than her response

to any subsequent dispositive motion. 

On February 20, 2007, the APWU filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary

judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 41-43). The Court ordered that the plaintiff respond to this motion on

or before March 23, 2007. (Docket Entry No. 44). On March 21, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion for

continuance requesting a sixty (60) day extension of time to respond to the APWU’s motion. (Docket

Entry No. 49). The plaintiff did not attempt to contact APWU’s counsel to seek the APWU’s consent

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 53 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 1 of 4
1 The Scheduling Order requires that a “request or motion for extension of a

deadline in any court order...(ii) must indicate that movant has, in a timely manner, previously

contacted counsel for all other parties; and (iii), based on that contact, must state whether counsel

for all other parties agree to or oppose the extension request or motion. A request or motion that

fails to meet this requirement will be denied outright, unless the movant offers a credible

explanation in the request or motion why this requirement has not been met.” (Uniform

Scheduling Order at Section 7(a) and (b)). (Docket Entry No. 52).

2

to this motion as is required by sections 7(a) and (b) of this Court’s Scheduling Order.1 On March 22,

2003, the Court granted the plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance, extending the deadline for the plaintiff’s

response to the APWU’s pending Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment until

May 21, 2007. (Docket Entry No. 51). Currently, the Scheduling Order provides that the final date

for the parties to file dispositve motion is April 30, 2007. (Docket Entry No. 52). This means that the

plaintiff’s response to the APWU’s already pending dispositive motion would be due later than her

response to any subsequent dispositve motion the APWU may file by April 30, 2007. 

This current sequence of due dates does not serve the interests of fairness and judicial efficiency.

If the Court rules in APWU’s favor on its pending dispositve motion, then obviously no further

dispositve motion would be necessary. Under the current Scheduling Order, the APWU will be

precluded from receiving the Court’s ruling on its pending motion before April 30, 2007. Therefore,

it will be forced to either file a second dispositve motion or, in the event the Court denies its initial

dispositve motion, essentially concede to a trial. This outcome would not be fair to the parties and

would threaten a substantial waste of the Court’s time and resources.

For the foregoing reasons, the APWU respectfully requests that this Court revise the Scheduling

Order to extend all dates to accommodate and correspond with the plaintiff’s 60 day extension of time

to respond to the APWU’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. A

proposed order is attached.

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 53 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

Dated: March 28, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

O’DONNELL, SCHWARTZ & ANDERSON, P.C.

By: /s/ Brenda Zwack 

 Brenda C. Zwack (D.C. No. 482673)

 Admitted Pro Hac Vice

 1300 L Street, NW, Suite 1200

 Washington, DC 20005-4126

 Tel (202) 898-1707/Fax (202) 682-9276

 bzwack@odsalaw.com

Attorneys for the American Postal Workers Union, 

AFL-CIO

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 53 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day caused the following people to be served by first class mail

postage pre-paid and through the Court’s electronic case filing system with a copy of the foregoing

Defendant American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO’s Motion forReconsideration of the Scheduling

Order, and the Proposed Order:

Deborah Moore Nickson

2820 Fairlane Drive

Suite A-10

Montgomery, AL 36116

William Post Roberts, II

Howell, Sarto & Howell

P.O. Box 681864

147 E. Main Street

Prattville, AL 36067

Dated: March 28, 2007 /s/ Brenda Zwack 

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 53 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

_______________________________________

)

ALMA T. MCBROOM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-767-MEF

)

JOHN E. POTTER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Defendant American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO’s Motion

for Reconsideration of the Scheduling Order, it is this _____ day of ______ 2007, hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED and that the dates on the Uniform

Scheduling Order that was filed on March 22, 2007, be extended sixty (60) days.

Accordingly, the Scheduling Order is revised as follows:

1. The trial is set for January 4, 2008.

2. A pretrial conference is set for November 30, 2007.

3. All dispositive motions must be filed by June 29, 2007.

4. Counsel for all parties will conduct a face-to-face settlement conference on or before

July 13, 2007.

5. All discovery must be completed by August 5, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 53-2 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

6. Parties shall disclose to each other the identity of any person who may be used at trial

to present evidence under Rules 701, 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence, and Rule 26(a)(2) Reports as follows:

From the plaintiff - September 1, 2007

From the defendants - October 2, 2007

7. On or before November 30, 2007, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3), the parties will

exchange witness lists, identify any part of a deposition or other document that it

expects to use at trial, and furnish for copying and inspection all exhibits or tangible

evidence to be used at the trial.

Date:_________________________ ________________________________

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 53-2 Filed 03/28/2007 Page 2 of 2