UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

GREGORY RAYMOND KELLEY,

Plaintiff

v.

CITY OF CEDAR PARK, SEAN 

MANNIX, and CHRISTOPHER 

DAILEY,

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 1:20-CV-481-RP

ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from 

Defendant City of Cedar Park, filed April 22, 2022 (Dkt. 82); Defendant City of Cedar Park’s 

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed April 29, 2022 (Dkt. 84); and Plaintiff’s Reply, 

filed May 6, 2022 (Dkt. 85).1In his Motion, Plaintiff Gregory Kelley asks the Court to compel 

Defendant City of Cedar Park (the “City”) to respond to 28 of his requests for production. 

The City served responses and objections to Kelley’s requests for production on January 11, 

2021, and discovery closed on February 13, 2022. Dkt. 82-1; text order entered October 29, 2021. 

The City argues that the Court should deny the Motion because it was filed more than two months 

after the discovery period expired and therefore is untimely. 

Local Rule CV-16(e) provides, in pertinent part: “Absent exceptional circumstances, no 

motions relating to discovery . . . shall be filed after the expiration of the discovery deadline, unless 

than are filed within 14 days after the discovery deadline and pertain to conduct occurring during 

1 On May 2, 2022, the District Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and 

Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas (“Local Rules”).

Case 1:20-cv-00481-RP Document 87 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
2

the final 7 days of discovery.” Accordingly, Kelley’s Motion to Compel must be denied as 

untimely unless he established exceptional circumstances.

The Court finds in its discretion that Kelley has shown exceptional circumstances for filing his 

Motion to Compel more than 14 days after the discovery deadline. Circumstances supporting this 

finding include that one of Kelley’s original attorneys has experienced health issues, and Kelley 

recently retained additional counsel who required time to review “the voluminous underlying 

criminal and habeas records” in his case. Dkt. 85 at 4; see also Dkt. 69. Trial is not set until 

November 14, 2022. Dkt. 74. In addition, the City has not yet answered Kelley’s complaint, and 

the parties continue to engage in depositions and other discovery. Dkt. 85 at 5. Finally, Kelley 

contends that his counsel recently became aware of relevant documents allegedly missing from the 

City’s production. See, e.g., Dkt. 85 at 2. The Court finds Kelley’s showing sufficient to establish 

exceptional circumstances pursuant to Local Rule CV-16(e). See Steward ex rel. Minor v. Smith, 

Nov. SA-10-CA-1025-OG, 2018 WL 11361752, at *1 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 2018) (finding that 

delay in filing motion to compel should not preclude its consideration where document production 

lasted for years and motion was filed more than four months before trial).

For the foregoing reasons, the parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a hearing on the 

merits of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production from Defendant City 

of Cedar Park (Dkt. 82) at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 13, 2022 in Courtroom Six on the 

Sixth Floor of the United States Courthouse, 501 West Fifth Street, Austin, Texas 78701.

SIGNED on May 10, 2022.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00481-RP Document 87 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2