Stipulation Extending MSJ Response Deadline
Filed 2026-04-01 · By Lucas W. Andrews (Stanton Law, for Plaintiff) and Caroline L. Scalf (Parker Poe, for BCSD) · Document type Joint Stipulation Extending Time View the PDF →
Legal shorthand used here: MSJ = Motion for Summary Judgment (asking the judge to decide without a trial). MPSJ = Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. BCSD = Bibb County School District. FERPA = Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (federal student-privacy law). IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. C.F.R. = Code of Federal Regulations.
What is this document?
This is a short procedural agreement between the two sides’ lawyers, filed jointly on April 1, 2026. In it, both sides agree that Bibb County School District’s (BCSD’s) deadline to file its written response to the newspaper’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (MPSJ — a request asking the judge to decide part of the case without a trial) is extended to April 23, 2026.
A stipulation is not a motion — nobody is asking the judge to decide anything contested. Both sides have already agreed. The filing formalizes that agreement so it appears in the court record and binds everyone going forward.
Two names appear on the stipulation: Lucas W. Andrews, lead counsel for The Macon Melody, and Caroline L. Scalf of Parker Poe, appearing for the school district. The stipulation does not move the April 29 hearing date. The practical effect is that BCSD’s written brief lands just six days before Judge Smith hears oral argument.
That tight window is itself a signal. When a briefing deadline falls so close to a hearing, it usually means both sides expect the hearing — the face-to-face oral argument before the judge — to do the heavy lifting, rather than the written briefs alone.
At a glance
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Filed | April 1, 2026 |
| Filed by | Joint — Andrews (Plaintiff) and Scalf (Defendant) |
| Document type | Joint Stipulation Extending Time |
| Effect | BCSD’s MSJ response deadline extended to April 23, 2026 |
| Hearing date | Unchanged — April 29, 2026 |
| Gap between response and hearing | 6 days |
The arguments in plain English
There are no “arguments” in the usual sense — a stipulation is an agreement, not a fight. What the document does say, by its structure, is this:
- BCSD wanted or needed more time to prepare its written opposition to the MSJ (Motion for Summary Judgment).
- The Melody did not object to giving BCSD that extra time.
- Both sides want the April 29 hearing to go forward as scheduled.
- Neither side wanted to burn a motion and a judicial decision on a scheduling question when they could just handle it between themselves.
Read between the lines, the stipulation tells you that the case is being litigated professionally and cooperatively at the procedural level, even though the parties disagree sharply about the merits. That is a good sign for the quality of the eventual hearing — neither side is trying to game the clock.
Deep dive — legal concepts, explained
What is a stipulation?
A stipulation is a formal, written agreement between opposing parties in a lawsuit. It is filed with the court and, once filed, binds everyone who signed it.
Stipulations can cover almost anything procedural: extending a deadline, admitting a fact so nobody has to prove it at trial, narrowing the issues in dispute, agreeing on the authenticity of a document. They are one of the main ways lawsuits actually move forward efficiently — trying to litigate every scheduling detail would grind the court system to a halt.
A stipulation does not require the judge to do anything. It becomes effective the moment both sides sign it and it is filed. Some courts require the judge to “so order” it as a formality, but the agreement itself is between the lawyers.
Crucially, a stipulation is not a concession on the merits. BCSD agreeing that the Melody’s counsel may have the courtesy of more time is not BCSD admitting anything about the settlement dispute itself. These are completely separate layers of the case.
Why parties agree to briefing extensions
Lawyers grant each other scheduling extensions for practical reasons and for cultural ones.
Practical reasons. Lawyers have overlapping schedules. A response to a 35-page motion with two appended exhibits and a long trail of federal-court authority requires serious time to research, draft, and revise. If defense counsel is also preparing for a deposition, another client’s trial, or a hearing on another matter, honest preparation may take longer than the rules’ default deadline allows. Rushing a brief produces worse briefs — and bad briefs lose cases. Allowing a short extension usually produces a better-argued opposition, which means a cleaner record and a more focused hearing.
Cultural reasons. Trial courts, particularly in Georgia, run on professional courtesy. Lawyers appear before the same judges repeatedly over years. A lawyer who refuses every extension request earns a reputation for obstructionism that costs them in future cases — even with the judge. Most lawyers grant reasonable extensions because they expect to need them back later.
Strategic reasons. Sometimes the moving party (here, the Melody) prefers to give the opposing side more time, not less. Why? Because a fully-briefed opposition makes the hearing cleaner: fewer surprise arguments at oral argument, fewer reasons to continue the hearing, less risk that BCSD could later claim it was rushed. A well-briefed loss is harder to appeal than a rushed one.
Why the timing matters (only 6 days before hearing)
The original hearing was set for April 29. The stipulation leaves that date in place while pushing BCSD’s brief to April 23. That’s a six-day gap between BCSD’s response and the hearing.
In federal practice and in most Georgia superior court practice, you would normally expect a week or more between the final brief and the hearing, to give the judge real time to read and absorb the written arguments before taking the bench. Six days is on the tight end.
That compressed schedule tells us several things:
The parties expect oral argument to do real work. When briefs arrive this close to a hearing, both sides tacitly accept that the judge may read them quickly and form many of his impressions at the podium. That puts a premium on clarity, concision, and oral advocacy — which favors whichever side has the cleaner story. The Melody’s motion is built around a short list of clear authorities (most notably Georgia’s own Red & Black decision) and a vivid factual hook (BCSD itself published the initials). That kind of motion generally plays well at oral argument.
Nobody wanted to move the hearing. Both sides could have agreed to push April 29 further out and give BCSD more breathing room. They didn’t. That means both sides want a ruling soon. The newspaper wants the dollar amount; the district presumably wants the question settled so it can either release the number and move on, or hold the line and preserve its appeal rights.
The judge will likely engage deeply at the podium. A trial judge who is getting briefs only days before a hearing will lean on counsel to walk him through the arguments in real time. Expect active questioning, bench-book citations, and probably a lengthy hearing.
Why this matters
Scheduling stipulations rarely make headlines, but they structure the rhythm of a case. This one tells us four things:
- The parties are still cooperating on process. Merits war, procedural peace.
- The April 29 hearing is the main event. Both sides are organizing their efforts around that date.
- Oral argument will carry serious weight. Briefs land on the 23rd; argument is on the 29th. Judge Smith will want to be walked through the law.
- BCSD’s written response, whenever it appears, will be the first public look at how the district plans to answer the Red & Black argument, the Florida Star jiu-jitsu, and the Michigan and Arizona precedents. Readers who want to understand how this case will be decided should watch for that April 23 filing as closely as they watched for the MSJ itself.
Read the original
Part of Court Filings · Case No. 2025-CV-083495 · Bibb County Superior Court