MADISON v. COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
LEAMON MADISON, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:23-CV-00031 (WLS)
:
COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL 	:
DISTRICT, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER
Before the Court is a Recommendation (Doc. 118) from United States Magistrate Judge
Alfreda L. Sheppard, entered on July 21, 2026. Therein, Judge Sheppard recommends that the
Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against all Defendants (Doc. 94) as untimely
under the Court’s 21/21/21 Rule, deny Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 98)
for failure to confer, and grant the Parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Fact Discovery
(Doc. 108). 	For 	the 	reasons discussed 	herein, 	the 	Recommendation 	is 	ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court.
I. 	RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt, Motion to Compel, Motion
for Sanctions Against All Defendants (Doc. 94). Plaintiff filed two supplemental briefs related
to that Motion on May 7 and May 18, 2026. (Docs. 95 & 99). Also on May 18, 2026, Defendant
filed a Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 98). The Court referred the case to Judge Sheppard
on May 8, 2026, for a recommendation to the Court on the Parties’ pending discovery motions.
(Doc. 96); (see Doc. 110). Then, on June 11, 2026, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension
of Fact Discovery (Doc. 108), wherein they requested an extension of the discovery period
from the current deadline of July 31, 2026, through September 30, 2026. The Court entered
an Order (Doc. 110) on June 17, 2026, holding the motion in abeyance until Judge Sheppard
entered a recommendation on the discovery motions.
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 120 Filed 08/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On July 10, 2026, Judge Sheppard held an evidentiary hearing on the discovery
motions. (See Doc. 117). Judge Sheppard entered the instant Recommendation (Doc. 118) on
July 21, 2026. The Recommendation and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provided the parties with
fourteen days, or through August 4, 2026, to file an objection. (Doc. 118 at 8). Plaintiff filed
an Objection (Doc. 119) on August 4, 2026.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court judge shall review de novo those portions of the recommendation to
which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. To properly object to
the Recommendation, a party must provide “written objections which shall specifically identify
the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and
the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and
not a general objection to the report.” Id. at 784.
III. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation on the grounds that his Motion for Contempt,
Motion to Compel, Motion for Sanctions Against All Defendants (Doc. 94) was in fact timely
under the Court’s 21/21/21 Rule. (Doc. 119 at 3).
Discovery rulings and specifically motions to compel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37, “are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court[.]” Johnson v. Geico Gen.
Ins. Co., 318 F. App’x 847, 850 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). Likewise, “district courts are entitled to
broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters.” Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d
1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002); see Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292,
1306–07 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Discretion means the district court has a ‘range of choice, and that
its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by
any mistake of law.’” (quoting Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2005))). This discretion includes the power to “hold litigants to the clear terms of its
scheduling orders[.]” Id. at 1307; see Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorell Juvenile Grp., Inc., 389 F.3d
1339, 1348–49 (11th Cir. 2004) (upholding under an abuse of discretion standard a district
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 120 Filed 08/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
court’s decision excluding an expert report disclosed after the deadline the court had
established for its submission).
As explained to the Parties at the discovery conference and reiterated in the original
Scheduling/Discovery Order (Doc. 76), the Court’s 21/21/21 Rule pertaining to motions
brought under Rule 37 provides in relevant part:
Unless extended by the Court upon a showing of good cause by either party
upon timely written motion, all motions made under Rule 37 must be filed
within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which the response(s) was due,
or twenty-one (21) days of receipt of an allegedly inadequate response or
other alleged violation of Rule 37, and no later than twenty-one (21) days
after the close of discovery, whichever first occurs.
(Doc. 	76 	at 	2). 	The 	purpose 	of 	the 	Rule 	is, 	as 	Judge 	Sheppard 	explained 	in 	the
Recommendation, to prevent Parties from delaying adjudication of discovery disputes until
the end of a lawsuit to gain a strategic advantage unrelated to the merits. (See Doc. 118 at 4).
To determine whether Plaintiff’s Motion complied with the Rule, the Court recounts the
timeline of events relevant to Plaintiff’s Motion.
• 	On January 16, 2026, Plaintiff served his first set of discovery requests
on the Individual Defendants and the Colquitt County School District,
which included requests for admission (RFAs), requests for production
of documents (RPDs), and interrogatories (ROGs).
• 	On March 30, 2026, all Defendants served responses to the RFAs, and
the Individual Defendants served responses to the RPDs, but no
documents were produced.
• 	Also on March 30, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion for Extension to
Respond 	to 	Outstanding 	Discovery 	Requests 	Served 	by 	Plaintiff
(Doc. 92). The Court granted the Motion and extended all Defendants’
deadline to respond to the ROGs and the School District’s time to
respond to the RPDs through April 22, 2026. (Doc. 93).
• 	On April 22, 2026, all Defendants served responses to the ROGS, and
the School District served responses to the RPDs, but again, no
documents were produced.
• 	On April 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, alleging
that all Defendants’ responses to the ROGs and RPDs were deficient.
(Doc. 94 at 1, 9).
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 120 Filed 08/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Judge Sheppard declined to reach the merits of the Motion, finding that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel was filed beyond the twenty-one-day deadline, as calculated from the
discovery responses received on March 30, 2026, and was therefore untimely. (Doc. 118 at 4).
The Court agrees. The 21/21/21 Rule clearly states that Rule 37 motions must be filed “within
twenty-one (21) days of the date on which the response(s) was due, or twenty-one (21) days
of receipt of an allegedly inadequate response . . . whichever first occurs.” According to
Plaintiff, the Individual Defendants’ March 30, 2026 RPD responses were inadequate. (See
Doc. 94 at 1, 7). Likewise, all Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s ROGs and the School
District’s RPD responses were insufficient under the relevant rules on March 30, 2026,
because no such responses were served on that day. Therefore, the clock started ticking on
March 30, 2026, the date the responses were due, notwithstanding the Court’s extension to
Defendants. And Plaintiff did not move the Court for an extension to file a Rule 37 motion.
Therefore, Judge Sheppard’s calculation from the date Defendants’ responses were
served, March 30, 2026, is correct. Plaintiff’s motion, under the 21/21/21 Rule was due
twenty-one days thereafter, or on April 20, 2026. Because his Motion was filed after that date,
it is untimely and due to be denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Upon full review and consideration of the Record, including de novo review of those
portions of the Recommendation to which an objection is made, the Court concurs with the
findings set forth in the Recommendation. The Court finds that the Recommendation
(Doc. 118) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this
Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the findings
made and conclusions reached herein. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Objection
(Doc. 119) is OVERRULED.
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s Motion 	for 	Contempt, 	Motion 	to 	Compel, 	Motion 	for
Sanctions Against All Defendants (Doc. 94), Plaintiff’s supplemental briefs related to that
Motion (Docs. 95 & 99), and Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 98) are
DENIED.
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 120 Filed 08/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Further, the Parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Fact Discovery (Doc. 108) is
GRANTED. However, as the Court stated in its previous Order (Doc. 110), the Court will
provide the Parties with the opportunity to state their respective positions regarding the need
for and appropriate duration of a discovery extension. The Parties are therefore ORDERED
to confer and inform the Court, in writing, of their position(s) on such extension within seven
(7) days of the entry of this Order, or by no later than Thursday, August 13, 2026. The
Parties may instead present a joint proposed order extending discovery by the same deadline
for the Court’s consideration.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of August 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:23-cv-00031-WLS-ALS Document 120 Filed 08/06/26 Page 5 of 5