The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, District Judge
Plaintiff Rickey B. Davis appeals the Text Order of United States Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore entered May 7, 2009 (Text Order) denying Davis' Motion to Reopen Fact Discovery Regarding Source for Rhodes' Article (d/e 239) (Motion to Reopen). Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal to the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge's Decision Denying His Motion to Reopen Fact Discovery (d/e 243). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Judge Cudmore's Decision was not an abuse of discretion. The Court therefore affirms the Text Order.
Davis filed the first of two consolidated cases on August 3, 2004 (2004 Case). Complaint (d/e 1). He claimed that the Defendant City of Springfield, Illinois (City), discriminated against him and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. On April 10, 2007, Davis filed the second case against the City alleging that the City had continued to discriminate and retaliate against him in violation of Title VII and §§ 1981 and 1983 (2007 Case). 2007 Case, Complaint (No. 07-3096 d/e 1).
The 2004 Case was tried by jury beginning on September 10, 2007. On September 14, 2007, the jury found in favor of the City on the discrimination claim, but could not reach a verdict on the retaliation claim. Minute entry entered September 14, 2007. On September 19, 2007, the Court held a telephone status conference to discuss consolidation of the two cases. Davis favored consolidation, but the City opposed it. At the Court's suggestion, Davis agreed to file a written motion to consolidate. The parties also agreed to a trial date of May 20, 2008, for the retrial of the one remaining claim in the 2004 Case. Minute Entry entered September 19, 2007. Davis filed the motion, and the parties briefed the issue. On November 1, 2007, the Court denied the request for consolidation. 2007 Case Order entered November 1, 2007 (No. 07-3096 d/e 13).
The Scheduling Conference of the 2007 Case occurred on January 24, 2008. At that time Judge Cudmore entered a Scheduling Order that called for discovery to close on January 10, 2009, and set the trial for June 2, 2009. Case 2007 Scheduling Order entered January 24, 2008 (No. 07-3096 d/e 16).
On April 8, 2008, Davis asked the Court to reconsider consolidation. Davis agreed to dismiss claims against individual Defendants named in the 2007 Case, leaving the City as the sole Defendant. Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Consolidate (No. 07-3096 d/e 19). The City did not oppose consolidation on those terms. Response to Motion to Reconsider Order Denying Motion to Consolidate (No. 07-3096 d/e 22). The Court allowed the Motion, dismissed the individual Defendants in the 2007 Case, and consolidated the two cases. The Court referred the consolidated matter to Judge Cudmore for a new Scheduling Order. 2007 Case Text Order entered April 25, 2008.
On May 23, 2008, Judge Cudmore entered a Scheduling Order that called for discovery to close on March 30, 2009. The consolidated matter was set for trial on August 4, 2009. Scheduling Order entered May 23, 2008 (d/e 166). Davis later asked for a continuance of the trial date. The Court allowed the request and continued the consolidated trial to September 1, 2009. Minute Entry entered January 30, 2009.
On January 9, 2009, Davis issued a subpoena to a journalist, Dusty Rhodes, to appear at a deposition on February 25, 2009, to testify concerning her source of information concerning a newspaper story about Davis. The story was published on September 14, 2006. The story reported that Davis applied for disability benefits due to depression. Davis alleged that the City leaked this information to Rhodes to retaliate and discriminate against him. See Opinion entered April 1, 2009 (d/e 221), at 2-4, 10-14 (detailed discussion of the facts surrounding Davis' request to depose Rhodes).
On February 19, 2009, Rhodes filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena (d/e 203) (Motion to Quash). On March 17, 2009, Davis filed a motion to extend fact discovery to take three depositions of representatives of the City, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6). Motion for Extension to Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery (d/e 211). Davis did not ask for an extension due to the pending Motion to Quash. Judge Cudmore allowed the request and extended discovery to April 10, 2009, to conduct these three depositions. Text Order entered March 17, 2009.
On March 23, 2009, Davis filed his final memorandum regarding the pending Motion to Quash. Plaintiff's Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena (d/e 217). Eight days later Judge Cudmore entered his Opinion allowing the Motion to Quash. Opinion entered April 1, 2009 (d/e 221) (April 1 Opinion). On April 3, 2009, Davis appealed the April 1 Opinion. Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal to the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge's Decision Granting a Motion to Quash His Subpoena (d/e 224). Davis did not at that time ask for an extension of discovery pending the outcome of his appeal.
On April 28, 2009, this Court affirmed the April 1 Opinion. Opinion entered April 28, 2009 (d/e 238). On April 30, 2009, Davis filed the Motion to Reopen. On May 7, 2009, Judge Cudmore entered the Text Order denying the Motion to Reopen. The Text Order said:
TEXT ORDER by Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Re-Open Fact Discovery Regarding Source for Rhodes' Article 239 and Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition 240. The Court has discretion herein. Motion 239 is DENIED. Plaintiff fails to establish good cause to re-open discovery. The Court's opinions concerning Plaintiff's attempt to depose non-party Dusty Rhodes 221 238 set forth the law and chronology of events and dates that give rise to Plaintiff's instant motion 239. The Court notes that the Motion to Quash Plaintiff's Subpoena of Dusty Rhodes 203 was filed 2/19/2009, well within the fact discovery period. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why he did not pursue the depositions now requested well before fact discovery closed on 3/30/2009, or during the extension of fact discovery to 4/10/2009 when the court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of ...