COX v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC 401 - Findlaw
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Paul COX, Appellant v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 401
No. 17-2989
Decided: October 10, 2018
Before: HARDIMAN, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit JudgesJack M. Bernard, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq., Gary M. Tocci, Esq., Jackson Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, Collin O. Udell, Esq., Jackson Lewis, Hartford, CT, for Defendant-Appellee United Parcel Service Inc Lars H. Anderson, Esq., Hourigan Kluger & Quinn, Kingston, PA, for Defendant-Appellee International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 401
OPINION *
If a party gets four extensions of his discovery deadlines and blows through them all without justification, he may well not get a fifth chance. The District Court here was admirably patient with Paul Cox, but that patience is finite. It repeatedly warned him that it would dismiss his case unless he complied. When Cox flouted the Court’s deadline yet again, the Court was entirely justified in following through and dismissing the case with prejudice.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Paul COX, Appellant v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 401
No. 17-2989
Decided: October 10, 2018
Before: HARDIMAN, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit JudgesJack M. Bernard, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy M. McCarthy, Esq., Gary M. Tocci, Esq., Jackson Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, Collin O. Udell, Esq., Jackson Lewis, Hartford, CT, for Defendant-Appellee United Parcel Service Inc Lars H. Anderson, Esq., Hourigan Kluger & Quinn, Kingston, PA, for Defendant-Appellee International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 401
OPINION *
If a party gets four extensions of his discovery deadlines and blows through them all without justification, he may well not get a fifth chance. The District Court here was admirably patient with Paul Cox, but that patience is finite. It repeatedly warned him that it would dismiss his case unless he complied. When Cox flouted the Court’s deadline yet again, the Court was entirely justified in following through and dismissing the case with prejudice.