IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, JR., et 

al. 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS, et al.

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00102-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Opposed Motion to Shorten the Deadline to Join 

Additional Parties and Limit Individual Depositions to Qualified Immunity (the “Motion”). (Dkt. 

No. 48.) In the Motion, Defendants Harrison County, Texas (“Harrison County”) and Southern 

Health Partners, Inc. (“Southern Health”) (collectively, “Defendants”) request (1) that the deadline 

to join additional parties to this case be shortened from April 29, 2024 to November 1, 2023, and 

(2) that the Court limit the depositions of any current or former Harrison County employee 

scheduled before the deadline to the issue of qualified immunity. Having considered the Motion 

and the subsequent briefing, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be and is

GRANTED AS MODIFIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case concerns the death of Lonetta Johnson, (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 9-69), which occurred

while she was incarcerated in the Harrison County jail. (Id.)

On June 12, 2023, Defendants and plaintiffs Robert Christopher Young, Jr. and LaShun 

Fuqua (“Plaintiffs”) submitted a joint conference report detailing the results of the parties’ Rule 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 698
2

26(f) conference, which included proposed deadlines agreed upon by the parties. (Dkt. No. 22.) In 

the joint conference report, the parties agreed to October 1, 2023 as the deadline to join additional 

parties. (Id.) Subsequently, the Court issued an Order setting a scheduling conference for July 20, 

2023, and provided the parties with a proposed Docket Control Order that set April 29, 2024 as 

the deadline to join additional parties. (Dkt. No. 25.)

At the scheduling conference on July 20, 2023, the parties indicated that disputes existed 

with respect to several of the dates in the Court’s proposed Docket Control Order. (Dkt. No. 40 at 

4:2-8, 6:21-11:14.) Specifically, Defendantsrequested that the Court use the originally agreed upon 

dates in the joint conference report, but Plaintiffs sought to proceed with the dates in the Court’s 

proposed Docket Control Order. (Id.)

Defendants alleged that the scheduling conference was the first time that Plaintiffs disputed

the agreed deadlines from the joint conference report.1(Id. at 7:21-8:14.) Plaintiffs expressed a 

desire to honor the agreements in the joint conference report, but ultimately indicated a preference 

for the Court’s proposed deadlines. (Id. at 10:7-16.) Following this explanation, Defendants 

expressed concern about the deadline to join additional parties: 

MR. FULGHAM: The first date we had moved up, which kind of had a cascading 

effect on these other dates, was the date to join additional parties, which we had 

agreed in the conference to move from -- where is it here?

THE COURT: It’s April 29 of what we have now. 

MR. FULGHAM: April 29 to October 1st, 2023. I mean, we were -- the reason why 

we pushed that date up was we wanted to avoid a situation where a defendant got 

added, you know, in the 11th hour an individual defendant and, you know, cause 

significant delays in the case. So that’s where we -- it was the start of our negotiation 

on these dates, and that’s how those other dates ended up changing. So, you know, 

that’s kind of where our -- that was our rationale, and, you know, that was the main 

1 Plaintiffs explained that the Rule 26(f) conference was conducted by an attorney no longer with the firm representing 

Plaintiffs. (Id. at 10:7-16.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 699
3

date. And we had agreed upon that October 1st, 2023, date in the conference, so 

that’s what affected these other dates.

(Id. at 10:23-11:13.) After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court instructed the 

following: 

[G]iven those explanations and given the lack of certainty as to how the parties got 

to proposing what they proposed today, I’m going to enter a docket control order 

with the current dates in place, and as we go forward if there’s a rationale to adjust 

these dates, you can always come back to me with an agreed or joint motion at a 

later time. I’m persuaded as I sit here that if there are going to be any changes to 

these dates, there needs to be further communication, further meeting and 

conferring. There seems to be some underlying uncertainty as to what each side’s 

talking about. So we’re going to go with what we have. You all are free to meet and 

confer further, and if you come to a clear, concise, joint position on some changes 

you’d like to propose, I’m always open to a joint motion from the parties to modify 

. . . the docket control order. But I’m going to enter a docket control order that you 

have before you with those dates to at least get us started. 

(Id. at 11:15-12:8.)

Following the scheduling conference, the Court issued a Docket Control Order with April 

29, 2024 as the deadline to join additional parties. (Dkt. No. 35.) On September 7, 2023,

Defendants filed this Opposed Motion seeking to shorten the deadline to join additional parties to 

November 1, 2023. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In determining whether “good cause” exists, the Court considers the following 

four factors: “(1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the 

importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the 

availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of El Paso, 346 F.3d 

541, 546-47 (5th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 700
4

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants make two requests in their Motion. First, Defendants request that the Court 

shorten the deadline to join additional parties from April 29, 2024 to November 1, 2023. Second, 

Defendants request that the Court limit the depositions of any current or former Harrison County 

employees to the issue of qualified immunity. 

Defendants argue that the deadline to join additional parties should be shortened to 

November 1, 2023 so that this Court may determine issues related to qualified immunity “at the 

earliest possible stage of the litigation.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 4) (citing Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 

310 (5th Cir. 2022)). Plaintiffs seek to depose five individuals who worked for the Harrison County 

jail at the time of Ms. Johnson’s incarceration and death. (Id. at 4, n.3). Specifically, the depositions 

of Haley Reed, John Hain, Alex Watson, Christian Chavez, and Jana Vanwert ( “Harrison County 

employees”) are scheduled for various dates in November and December. (Dkt. No. 56 at 3, n.1); 

(Dkt. No. 57); (Dkt. No. 62.) None of these individuals are currently parties in this case. However, 

according to Defendants, “Plaintiffs will inevitably add [these] individual defendants to this 

lawsuit,” and these individuals “will almost certainly assert the defense of qualified immunity.” 

(Dkt. No. 48 at 5); (Dkt. No. 56 at 1.) Defendants predict that the current deadline will allow 

Plaintiffs to circumvent Fifth Circuit precedent, which requires determining issues of qualified 

immunity “at the earliest possible stage of litigation,” by deposing the employees of Defendant 

Harrison County prior to joining them as defendants. (Dkt. No. 48 at 4) (citing Carswell, 54 F.4th 

at 310).

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should deny the Motion because qualified immunity is not 

at issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 53 at 3-5.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants lack 

standing to raise the issue of qualified immunity on behalf of Harrison County’s employees. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs represent that they “currently have no intention of adding natural person defendants.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 701
5

(Dkt. No. 57 at 3.) However, Plaintiffs argue that they are “not required to make that determination 

before having the opportunity to engage in necessary discovery.” (Id.) Plaintiffs further argue that

the Fifth Circuit caselaw cited by Defendants “is limited to situations where actual, as opposed to 

hypothetical, natural persons have actually raised the defense of qualified immunity.” (Dkt. No. 

53 at 5.) 

The Court finds that there is good cause to shorten the deadline to join additional parties. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) provides the applicable standard for changing a date on 

the Court’s schedule, where it states, “[a] scheduling order may be modified only for good cause 

and with a judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). While, neither party references the applicable 

rule, the Court finds that the amendment to the schedule is important and that Plaintiffs will not be 

prejudiced by a shortened deadline. 

Here, the shortened deadline is important to protect the interests of Harrison County 

employees in having issues of qualified immunity resolved prior to their depositions and to avoid 

their joinder at the eleventh hour. The Fifth Circuit has held that courts must determine a 

defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity at “the earliest possible stage of the litigation.”

Carswell, 54 F.4th at 310. This is because qualified immunity is more than “a mere defense to 

liability,” it is also “an immunity from suit.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 237 (2009) 

(quotation omitted). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit recognizes, “one of the most important benefits of 

the qualified immunity defense is protection from pretrial discovery, which is costly, timeconsuming, and intrusive.” Carswell, 54 F.4th at 310. 

Such issues are implicated in this case, even though the Harrison County employees have 

not yet been joined as defendants. The Court notes Plaintiff’s concern that Defendants’ request 

necessarily requires some speculation as to the likelihood these individuals being added to the 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 702
6

case. However, the Court is not limited to setting its schedule as to only inevitable events. The 

Court’s Docket Control Order is designed to simplify the case and provide some certainty to the 

parties on the progression of the case. In other words, it is designed to prevent as many problematic 

scenarios as possible, including the issues raised by Defendants here. 

The problem presently before the Court is best illustrated by the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in 

Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307. In Carswell, the district court declined to rule on the issue of 

qualified immunity raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, deferring its ruling instead to the 

summary judgment stage. Id. at 309-10. The district court also stayed discovery on the issue of 

qualified immunity and allowed the parties to depose individual witnesses in their Monell/official 

capacities. Id. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that “[w]here public officials 

assert qualified immunity in a motion to dismiss, a district court must rule on the motion. It may 

not permit discovery against the immunity-asserting defendants before it rules on their defense.” 

Id. at 311. The Fifth Circuit also found that staying discovery on the issue of qualified immunity 

did not cure the prejudice to the witnesses in allowing depositions to go forward prior to having 

issues of qualified immunity resolved. Id. at 313.

While the depositions in Carswell were of actual named defendants who raised qualified 

immunity in a motion, the same concerns elaborated upon by the Fifth Circuit are implicated in 

this case. As in Carswell, Harrison County’s employees must “be particularly careful in [their] 

deposition[s] about how [their] answers can be used against [them] not in one but two ways,” since 

they may still be added as parties after their depositions. See Carswell, 54 F.4th at 313. 

Additionally, if Plaintiffs joined these individuals as defendants after their depositions, these 

individuals may well need to sit for two depositions—one on Monell issues and one on personalcapacity issues—which would “exacerbate the burdens of litigation” and “turn[] qualified 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 703
7

immunity on its head.” See id. at 314. Shortening the deadline to join additional parties would 

avoid these concerns by ensuring that any individual defendants, if joined, could raise a qualified 

immunity defense prior to being deposed. 

Plaintiffs argue Carswell only applies where qualified immunity has actually been asserted 

in a motion to dismiss, and “[n]o such motion has or could be filed” here. (Dkt. No. 53 at 5.)

However, the fact that no such motion “could be filed” is the problem itself. It is impossible for 

this case to be procedurally identical to Carswell precisely because these non-party witnesses 

cannot raise qualified immunity in this current posture. However, this procedural distinction does 

nothing to ameliorate the concerns raised in Carswell. In view of these concerns, Defendants

simply request that the deadline be shortened so that the witnesses in this case can be afforded the 

same opportunity as the witnesses in Carswell: the opportunity to raise issues of qualified 

immunity prior to being subject to intrusive discovery. 

As explained above, the Court’s Docket Control Order is designed to simplify the case and 

create certainty. The current deadline creates a possible scenario that could complicate, not 

simplify, the case. A shortened deadline eliminates this potentially harmful scenario. The Court 

finds that the suggested amendment to the schedule is important. 

Shortening the deadline will not materially prejudice Plaintiffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs, at one 

point, were amenable to October 1, 2023 as a deadline to join additional parties (Dkt. No. 22.).

2

They cannot, and do not, now say that November 1, 2023 would be a prejudicial deadline. Any 

argument by Plaintiffs that this shortened deadline would cause prejudicial delay if Plaintiffs are 

2 Any deadline set by the Court is intended to be a ceiling, not a floor. The parties are permitted to negotiate discovery 

deadlines that are earlier than the ones set by the Court on the Docket Control Order. The parties should not interpret 

any date set by the Court as an excuse for the parties to back out of any prior agreements on earlier deadlines. The fact 

that the agreement was made by counsel no longer present in the case is no justification to go back on a prior 

agreement. 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 704
8

unable to take these depositions until after the deadline are unpersuasive. Fact discovery ends on 

June 24, 2024. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiffs will have more than enough time to depose Defendants’ 

witnesses after the shortened deadline to join additional parties. 

Nothing in the Court’s Order affects the parties’ ability to “engage in necessary discovery.” 

(See Dkt. No. 57 at 3.) Indeed, the parties have had the opportunity to engage in fact discovery for 

nearly four months. Further, this is not a case where Plaintiffs need discovery to discern the identity 

of the employees involved in Ms. Johnson’s incarceration and death. Plaintiffs are aware of the 

particular Harrison County employees well enough to identify them by name in the Complaint and 

summon them for depositions. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 8-33) (naming Haley Reed, John Hain, Alex 

Watson, Christian Chavez, and Jana Vanwert in the factual contentions). Finally, the Court’s 

deadline to join additional parties is not an absolute bar. After the deadline passes, and if good 

cause exists to add a party, Plaintiffs may file a motion seeking leave to join additional parties. On 

the other hand, if Plaintiffs currently have sufficient information to determine what parties to join, 

there is no reason for them to delay until after depositions.

For the above reasons the Court finds that good cause exists to shorten the deadline to join 

additional parties. However, the Court is conscious that Plaintiffs should be given a reasonable 

amount of time to exercise their ability to join additional parties after the issue of this Order. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that December 15, 2023 is a reasonable shortened deadline.

3

Of course, it would undermine applicable guidance from the Fifth Circuit if Plaintiffs were 

permitted to proceed with depositions of the Harrison County employees between now and the 

3 Limitation No. 5 of the Docket Control Order in this case (Dkt. No. 35) states: “Any motion to alter any date on the 

DCO shall take the form of motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCO shall include a proposed order 

that lists all of the remaining dates in one column (as above) and the proposed changes to each date in an additional 

adjacent column (if there is no change for a date the proposed date column should remain blank or indicate that it is 

unchanged). In other words, the DCO in the proposed order should be complete such that one can clearly see all the 

remaining deadlines and the changes, if any, to those deadlines, rather than needing to also refer to an earlier version 

of the DCO.” Defendants are to submit a proposed DCO consistent with the Court’s ruling. 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 705
9

shortened deadline to join additional parties on December 15, 2023. Defendants, anticipating this 

problem, request that the depositions of all current and former Harrison County employees taken 

before the shortened deadline be limited to only the issue of qualified immunity. However, the 

Court finds that depositions of the Harrison county employees before December 15, 2023 could 

well result in bifurcated multiple depositions, which goes directly against Carswell. Defendants 

have pointed to five individuals (Haley Reed, John Hain, Alex Watson, Christian Chavez, and Jana 

Vanwert) who would likely raise qualified immunity as a defense if joined based on the specific 

factual allegations in the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 48 at 4-5, n.3) (citing Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 23, 37-51, 55-

56, 63, 66-69, 117-121.) The Court agrees that allowing depositions of these five individuals prior 

to the (now shortened) deadline to join additional parties would undermine the guidance articulated 

in Carswell. Accordingly, the depositions of Haley Reed, John Hain, Alex Watson, Christian 

Chavez, and Jana Vanwert should be and are stayed until the deadline to join additional parties 

passes.

4

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS AS MODIFIED the Motion to Shorten 

the Deadline to Join Additional Parties and Limit Individual Depositions to Qualified Immunity. 

(Dkt. No. 48.)

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the deadline to join additional parties is shortened to 

December 15, 2023. It is further ORDERED that the depositions of Haley Reed, John Hain, Alex 

Watson, Christian Chavez, and Jana Vanwert are stayed up to and including December 15, 2023. 

4 While the stay is limited to the five individuals specifically named in the Motion, the parties should not interpret this 

as carte blanche to schedule depositions prior to the shortened for other Harrison County employees that the reasoning 

in this Order may also apply to. The Court can neither confirm nor deny that a stay would be appropriate for any other 

depositions based on the record before it, and the parties are expected to work together in determining the most 

appropriate date for depositions. The Court reiterates that the parties will have six months after the shortened deadline 

to conduct fact discovery, during which time the parties should have more than enough time to take all necessary

depositions. 

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 706
10

Finally, the parties are ORDERED to jointly submit a proposed Amended Docket Control Order 

reflecting the changes to the schedule, within ten (10) days from this date.

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00102-JRG Document 64 Filed 11/21/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 707