MOTION FOR RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER

MOTION FOR RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER

MOTION TO CLARIFY

Come now Plaintiffs Blackston and Barber and request the Court to clarify statements made in the Status Conference held on 12 April 2002 and for a ruling on Plaintiffs' OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SCHEDULING ORDER, FILED ON 13 MARCH 2002, DOC. #121.

1. On 13 March 2002 the Magistrate Judge entered an Order setting a Scheduling Conference for 9:00 a.m. on 12 April 2002. (See Doc. #118)

2. On 13 March 2002 the Magistrate Judge entered an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why motion to compel nonparty compliance with a subpoena should not be granted. (See Doc. #119)

3. On 13 March 2002 the Magistrate Judge entered an amended Scheduling Order. (See Doc. #121).

4. On 26 March 2002 the Plaintiffs filed OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SCHEDULING ORDER, FILED ON 13 MARCH 2002, DOC. #121. (See Doc. #123)

5. In the above Scheduling Conference on 12 April 2002, the Magistrate Judge stated in open court that the Scheduling Order (Doc. #121) was obviously ineffective and would be rescinded or amended. (See Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings of Status Conference held on 12 April 2002, Doc. #130)

6. More than four (4) weeks have passed and the present Scheduling Order remains in effect without the Plaintiffs' ability to pursue discovery or any other provision of the Scheduling Order.

7. The Magistrate Judge has not held the Defendants accountable for failure to abide by the Scheduling Order.

8. The Magistrate Judge held a Status Conference/ ORAL ARGUMENT on 19 April 2002 on motions and objections Doc. # 122, 123, 124, 125. (See Courtroom Deputy's MINUTES of proceedings, Doc. #134)

9. The Magistrate Judge delays her findings concerning nonparty Bob Bradford's contempt for refusing to honor a lawfully issued subpoena. ⁽¹⁾

10. The Magistrate Judge delays her findings concerning nonparty Lois Brasfield's contempt for refusing to honor a lawfully issued subpoena. ⁽²⁾

11. The Plaintiffs are once again hamstrung in their efforts to prosecute their case by an ineffective and unfair Scheduling Order. (See Plaintiffs Objection, Doc. #123)

12. In addition to the objections stated in the Plaintiffs' OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SCHEDULING ORDER, FILED ON 13 MARCH 2002, DOC. #121. (See Doc. #123), the amended Scheduling Order, (Doc. #121), without an Order of rescission or amendment, continues to tick away at critical time deadlines established by law of the Scheduling Order and violates the Plaintiffs' due process rights.

Wherefore premises considered the Plaintiffs' respectfully request this Honorable Court to:

1. Issue an Order on the Plaintiffs' OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SCHEDULING ORDER, FILED ON 13 MARCH 2002. (See Doc. 123) and amend the Scheduling Order to reflect new deadlines.

Respectfully submitted on 14 May 2002.

Footnotes

1. The Plaintiffs proved without any doubt that Bob Bradford perjured himself on the witness stand in the status conference/hearing on 19 April 2002. (See Plaintiffs' Response to Magistrate Judge's Oral Order on 19 April 2002, Doc. # 137, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B.) Not only did a fully certified process server, private investigator, Mr. J. E. Scott personally serve nonparty Bob Bradford, the process server served the subpoena in the security person's presence on duty at the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts where Bob Bradford is employed.

2. The Plaintiffs proved without any doubt that Lois Brasfield perjured herself in her affidavit attached to Non-Party Response of Lois Brasfield to Court's Order, Doc. #135. ( See Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, w/attachments, Doc. # 138)