IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT EARL RONE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:22-cv-509-TFM-N ) ALEX LOTT,1 et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

THOMAS LAMAR RONE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIV. ACT. NO. 1:23-cv-154-TFM-N ) ALEX LOTT, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to Consolidate (Civ. Act. No. 1:22-cv- 509, Doc. 109, filed 9/16/24; Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-154, Doc. 33, filed 9/16/24). For good cause, it is ORDERED that the motions to consolidate for the purposes of discovery are GRANTED. I. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state: “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or

1 The Court noticed that the parties used the original lead defendant Ashley Rich in the header. However, she was terminated from this action on December 8, 2023 when the Court dismissed her from the action. See Doc. 62. Therefore, the Court corrects the header to the “next in line” defendant which is Alex Lott – who is a defendant in both cases. delay.” FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) “is a codification of a trial court’s inherent managerial power ‘to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’” Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1985) (citing In re Air Crash Disaster at Fla. Everglades,

(5th Cir. 1977)). However, as noted by the plain language in the use of the word “may,” the

Court’s decision under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) is purely discretionary. See also Eghnayem v. Boston Sci. Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Hendrix,

) (emphasizing decision is “purely discretionary.”). In exercising that discretion, the Court must take into account the following factors: (1) whether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues; (2) the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits; (3) the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one; and (4) the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.

Finally, the Court may decide to consolidate for pretrial, trial, or both.

Turning to the situation at hand, the Court finds that the majority of the above factors are met in favor of consolidation on discovery-matters. Additionally, Defendant Lott notes that no party objects to the consolidation. The Court finds that consolidation for discovery is appropriate. While normally the Court would direct the parties to file all discovery issues in the first-filed case, the case at hand, the second filed case has already had some discovery. Therefore, for the purposes of discovery-only, the parties shall file their discovery matters in the second case as discussed in the conclusion. II. CONCLUSION For the reasons articulated above, it is ORDERED that the motions to consolidate (Civ. Act. No. 1:22-cv-509, Doc. 109; Civ. Act. No. 1:23-cv-154, Doc. 33) are GRANTED. The parties are also DIRECTED to use the consolidated header used on this order for all discovery related matters. Any non-discovery motions that pertain to an individual case shall be filed only in its original case with the single header. The entry of an amended scheduling order is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2024. /s/ Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE