742 F.Supp. 676 (N.D.Ga. 1990), Civ. A. 4 88-CV-0141, Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc.

Docket Nº:Civ. A. 4 88-CV-0141
Citation:742 F.Supp. 676
Party Name:Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc.
Case Date:August 08, 1990
Court:United States District Courts, 11th Circuit, Northern District of Georgia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 676

742 F.Supp. 676 (N.D.Ga. 1990)

Lizzie Beatrice EASTERWOOD, Plaintiff,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. 4:88-CV-0141-RLV.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia.

Aug. 8, 1990

Page 677

James I. Parker and William Lee Lundy, Parker & Lundy, Cedartown, Ga., for plaintiff.

Jack Senterfitt and Richard T. Fulton, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

ORDER

VINING, District Judge.

This negligence action is before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's oral grant of summary judgment after hearing arguments by the parties. Also pending is the plaintiff's motion to file supplemental evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Having considered the parties' briefs and oral arguments, the court hereby GRANTS the defendant's motion for summary judgment and DENIES the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion to supplement the record.

The plaintiff seeks to file with the court supplemental evidence supporting its motion for reconsideration of the court's March 22, 1990, oral grant of summary judgment for the defendant. This motion is premised on the plaintiff's argument that she did not have sufficient time to adequately respond to the motion for summary judgment because the action was on a trial calendar scheduled to begin approximately four weeks after the filing of the motion for summary judgment. The court, however, finds this argument insufficient to justify the court's consideration of such evidence at this late stage of the proceedings.

After reviewing the parties' summary judgment briefs this action was removed from the trial calendar and oral arguments were scheduled for March 22, 1990. At no time during this three month delay or prior to oral arguments did the plaintiff file with the court additional affidavits or exhibits or a motion to extend time. Instead, at oral arguments plaintiff's counsel sought to introduce a single additional affidavit. The court refused to consider the affidavit because it was not filed prior to the hearing of the motion for summary judgment. Similarly, plaintiff now seeks to file with the court evidence intended to create genuine issues of material fact in an attempt to avoid summary judgment. The court, however, finds no justification for the plaintiff's failure to produce evidence available or...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP