# Feek

> District Court, N.D. Alabama · July 21, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11406497

## Case

- **Full name:** Heritage Ministries, doing business as Homestead Heritage, et al. v. Heidi Caroline Feek, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Alabama
- **Decided:** July 21, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11406497

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
HERITAGE MINISTRIES, doing )
business as HOMESTEAD )
HERITAGE, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-1267-CLS
)
HEIDI CAROLINE FEEK, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This opinion addresses the motion filed by defendants, seeking reconsideration
of the expert witness disclosure deadlines specified in the amended scheduling order
entered by this court on July 1, 2026. Compare doc. no. 72 (Amended Scheduling
Order) with doc. no. 73 (Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Plaintiffs’
Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion).1
The motion is best understood in the context of the following procedural history.
The following entities are named as plaintiffs: Heritage Ministries, doing
business as Homestead Heritage, and Heritage Barns LLC, doing business as Heritage
1 The written text of defendants’ motion to reconsider (doc. no. 73) opposes both the length
of the deadline extensions granted by this court in the amended scheduling order entered on July 1,
2026 (doc. no. 72), as well as the additional time allowed to plaintiffs for the disclosure of expert
witness(es). However, during oral argument, defendants limited their request for reconsideration to
the expert witness disclosure deadlines.
Restorations.2 The first of those entities (i.e., Heritage Ministries, doing business as
Homestead Heritage) is described as a Texas nonprofit corporation based in

McLennan County, Texas, which allegedly is
a Christian community that celebrates its faith by pursuing a simple,
agrarian lifestyle and promotes that faith by hosting hundreds of
thousands of guests annually to its craft village, country markets, fall
harvest festival and annual Homestead Fair. There are approximately
1,200 members of the church locally and 200,000 visitors to the village
each year.
Doc. no. 53 (Amended Complaint) ¶ 3.3
The plaintiffs have lodged complex defamation claims against three
defendants: Heidi Feek, a resident of Florence, Alabama, who allegedly maintains
an Instagram account with more than 48,000 followers;4 Townsquare Media, a
Delaware corporation with headquarters in New York which does business as the
“Taste of Country,” a website claiming more than 700,000 unique visitors, and an

“X” (formerly Twitter) account boasting more than 560,000 followers;5 and,
journalist Carena Elizabeth Liptak, a resident of the State of New York who is an

2 Doc. no. 53 (Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 3-4. The original complaint also named three
individual residents of the State of Montana as plaintiffs: i.e., Matthew Brandstadt, Brian
Brandstadt, and Daniel Brandstadt. Doc. no. 1 (Complaint), ¶ 5. Even so, the Amended Complaint
omitted those persons.
3 Heritage Barns LLC, the last of the Heritage plaintiffs, is described as a Texas limited
liability company doing business as Heritage Restorations. Doc. no. 53, ¶ 4.
4 Id., ¶ 5.
5 Id., ¶ 6.
2
Associate Editor and Staff Writer at the Taste of Country.6 Among many other
things, plaintiffs allege that defendants used their social media platforms to publish

and amplify false and defamatory statements about plaintiffs — to-wit, that they
perpetuate and conceal physical and sexual abuse of children — and that they did so
with actual malice and knowledge of the falsity of the claims.

The case originally was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Herman N.
Johnson, Jr.7 When the parties failed to unanimously consent to the dispositive
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the case was reassigned to United States District

Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala.8 However, Judge Haikala recused the following
week,9 and the case was reassigned to United States District Judge Liles C. Burke.10
Judge Burke entered a scheduling order on September 4, 2025, which

established the following deadlines:
1. Pleadings and Parties: No causes of action, defenses, or
parties may be added without leave of court.
2. Discovery Cutoff: All discovery must be commenced in time
to be completed by December 31, 2025.
3. Mediation: Parties are to conduct mediation within 30 days
6 Id., ¶ 7.
7 Doc. no. 2.
8 Doc. no. 14.
9 Doc. no. 15.
10 Doc. nos. 14 and 17 (both entered on October 24, 2024).
3
after the close of discovery.
4. Dispositive Motions: All potentially dispositive motions,
including Daubert motions, must be filed by March 9, 2026. * * * *
5. Expert Testimony: Unless modified by court order for good
cause shown, the disclosures of expert witnesses — including a
complete report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) from any specially
retained or employed expert — are due:
From plaintiff[s] by September 30, 2025.
From defendant[s] by December 1, 2025.
6. Final Lists: Lists of trial witnesses and exhibits must be filed
by May 8, 2026. Any objections to such lists, including objections
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3), must be filed within
fourteen days thereafter.
7. Trial: The parties shall be ready for trial by June 2026. * * *
Doc. no. 57 (Scheduling Order entered September 4, 2025) (boldface in original,
ellipses and bracketed alterations supplied).11

Twenty days later, however, Judge Burke entered an order of recusal and the
case was simultaneously reassigned to the undersigned: the fourth judicial officer to
11 The report of the parties’ planning meeting submitted on November 26, 2024, revealed a
disagreement on expert witness disclosures. Plaintiffs asked for “Initial Reports” from any expert
witness to be submitted simultaneously, on September 30, 2025, with “Rebuttal Reports” to be
submitted within sixty days “of the Initial Report it rebuts.” Doc. no. 23 (Rule 26(f) Report), at 14.
In contrast, the “Townsquare Defendants” argued that “expert discovery should be staggered as
Plaintiffs carry the burden of proof on their claims,” and they proposed the following schedule for
disclosures — i.e., September 30, 2025 as plaintiffs’ expert witness disclosure deadline, and
December 1, 2025 as defendants’ deadline — with “Supplemental expert reports [to be] governed
by the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e).” Id. at 15 (alteration supplied). Thus, Judge Burke’s
Order (doc. no. 57) adopted the schedule advocated by defendants.
4
have possession of the file.12
The parties jointly filed a motion on November 12, 2025, asking the court “to

enter an order extending all remaining deadlines by six (6) months.” Doc. no. 62
(Joint Motion to Extend Remaining Deadlines by Six Months), at 1 (emphasis
supplied). As grounds, the parties stated:

1. This is a complex case in which the parties have each produced
thousands of pages of documents in paper discovery, which is largely
complete. Discovery has included forensic downloads of cellular
phones and social media accounts that has taken more time than initially
expected.
2. Defendant Heidi Feek was deposed by the Plaintiffs on
October 14, 2025. The parties have six days set aside over a two week
period to take depositions in Texas in December 2025.
3. Additional depositions will be necessary, and will likely have
to take place in Montana and New York. Expert depositions will also
be necessary.
4. Due to scheduling conflicts of the parties, counsel, deponents,
and experts, the parties do not believe that discovery can reasonably be
completed by the current December 31, 2025 discovery cutoff.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the parties jointly move the
Court to extend all remaining deadlines by six (6) months and pray for
such further and other relief as they may show themselves entitled.
Id. at 1-2 (emphasis supplied).
On November 12, 2025 — the date upon which the foregoing joint motion to
12 Doc. nos. 59 (September 24, 2025 Order of Recusal) and 60 (Notice of Reassignment).
5
extend “all remaining deadlines by six (6) months” was filed — the deadline
specified in Judge Burke’s preexisting Scheduling Order (doc. no. 57) for plaintiffs

to disclose expert witnesses (September 30, 2025) already had expired, but the
deadline for defendants to do so (December 1, 2025) had not.13 Even so, this court
failed to note that anomaly,14 and the order granting the parties’ motion read as

follows:
This action is before the court on the parties’ joint motion to
amend the scheduling order. (Doc. 62). Upon consideration, the motion
is GRANTED. The scheduling order entered on September 4, 2025
(Doc. 57) is hereby amended as follows:
! Discovery Deadline: June 30, 2026
! Dispositive Motions: September 9, 2026
! Final Witness and Exhibit Lists: November 9, 2026
! Trial Ready: December 2026.

Doc. no. 63 (Order entered November 13, 2025).
The failure of the foregoing order to address any deadline for plaintiffs to
13 Doc. no. 57 (Scheduling Order entered September 4, 2025), at 2, ¶ 5. Notably, plaintiffs
state in their June 30, 2026 motion to extend deadlines (doc. no. 71) that they “did not anticipate that
Defendants’ counsel’s draft of the joint motion for the extension [of deadlines filed on November
12, 2025 as doc. no. 62] would apply to only the ‘remaining’ deadlines.” Doc. no. 71 (Plaintiffs’
June 30, 2026 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines), ¶ 27 (emphasis and alterations
supplied). That assertion strains credulity. The phrase “remaining deadlines” clearly appears three
times in the two-page motion: i.e., in the title of the motion itself, in all-cap, bold-face words; in the
initial, unnumbered paragraph (“enter an order extending all remaining deadlines”); and finally, in
the concluding, unnumbered paragraph (“extend all remaining deadlines”).
14 “The buck stops here.” Harry S. Truman.
6
disclose expert witnesses was correct, because the deadline specified in Judge
Burke’s preexisting scheduling order (doc. no. 57) for plaintiffs to do so (September

30, 2025) already had expired. But, the omission of any reference to the defendants’
disclosure obligation was not correct, because the deadline specified in Judge
Burke’s preexisting scheduling order (December 1, 2025) had not expired, and it

should have been extended six months, to June 1, 2026.
A week after entry of the foregoing order (doc. no. 63), one of defendants’
attorneys noted the omission of any reference to the topic of expert witnesses, and

transmitted the following email to all counsel:
All,
As I am sure you saw, the court granted our joint motion to extend the
scheduling order by 6 months. In the order, the court only called out a
few deadlines with specific dates (discovery deadline, dispositive
motions, witness exhibit lists, and trial ready date). But in the
scheduling order (Doc. 57), we have a few other deadlines, including
mediation and experts.
We are assuming that because the court granted our joint motion in full,
all deadlines were pushed back 6 months, including expert deadlines.
By that calculation, Plaintiffs’ expert disclosure deadline would be
March 30, 2026, and Defendants’ expert disclosure would be June 1,
2026. Though the Court’s order does not expressly mention these dates,
we propose that we jointly agree to abide by these dates, without the
need to further burden the Court.
Please let us know if we have your agreement to this approach.
7
Doc. no. 73-1 (November 21, 2025 Email from Tatum L. Jackson, representing
Townsquare Media, Inc., and Carena Elizabeth Liptak), at ECF 2 (emphasis

supplied).
That defense proposal had the effect of resurrecting plaintiffs’ expired expert
witness disclosure deadline and extending it six months. Thus, it should come as no

great surprise that, on the third day following the defense proposal, one of plaintiffs’
attorneys said “I’m good with this [i.e., resurrecting plaintiffs’ expired deadline and
extending it to March 30, 2026].”15

Even so, plaintiffs did not make any expert witnesses disclosures by even that
extended deadline.16 Defendants, however, timely disclosed two expert witnesses on
June 1, 2026.

On the last day of the month of June 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion to further
extend the litigation’s controlling deadlines.17 Notably, that was the date specified
in this court’s November 13, 2025 amended scheduling order (doc. no. 63) for the
parties to conclude discovery.18 Moreover, plaintiffs’ motion asked the court to

15 Doc. no. 73-2 (November 24, 2025 Email from Gray Gilmore, representing plaintiffs), at
ECF 2 (alteration supplied).
16 See doc. no. 71 (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines), ¶¶ 27, 28.
Note well: Plaintiffs’ motion originally was docketed as doc. no. 67, but that pleading was placed
under seal and a redacted copy filed and docketed as doc. no. 71.
17 Id. at 11 (referencing expert disclosures served by defendants on June 1, 2026).
18 Doc. no. 71 (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines).
8
extend all deadlines specified in Judge Burke’s September 4, 2025 Scheduling Order
(doc. no. 57) — not the deadlines stated in this court’s November 13, 2025 amended

scheduling order (doc. no. 63) — by twelve months.19 Plaintiffs specifically asked
that their deadline for disclosing expert witnesses be extended to permit “rebuttal
expert” disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii).20

Without considering the nuances of the foregoing facts, and without requesting
a response from defendants, this court all too quickly entered an order on July 1,
2026,21 extending the scheduling deadlines as follows:

! Discovery must be completed by March 31, 2027.
! All potentially dispositive motions must be filed by June 30,
2027.
! Expert disclosure deadlines:
For plaintiffs: December 31, 2026;

For defendants: March 31, 2027.
! Final lists of trial witnesses and exhibits: August 31, 2027.
! The parties shall be ready for trial by September 30, 2027.

19 See id. ¶ 20 (“Plaintiffs request that the Court expressly set and extend all deadlines,
including the expert-disclosure deadlines for all parties, by 12 months from the original September
4 [sic], 2025 scheduling order (Doc. 57).” (emphasis and alteration supplied)).
20 Id. ¶ 28. The text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) is set out infra, in the
Discussion section of this opinion.
21 See note 14, supra.
9
Doc. no. 72 (Amended Scheduling Order entered July 1, 2026).
The foregoing recitation of procedural facts brings the court to the motion filed

by defendants, seeking reconsideration of the amended scheduling order entered by
this court on July 1, 2026.22
DISCUSSION

“[D]istrict courts have discretion to revisit their prior interlocutory orders,
considering both the weight of the moving party’s arguments and the disruption that
a change would cause in light of the time that has passed since the decision was

initially made.” Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 118 F.4th 1367, 1381
(11th Cir. 2024); see also, e.g., Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307,
1315 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that district courts possess “plenary power” over an

interlocutory order, and the “power to reconsider, revise, alter, or amend it”). The
grant or denial of a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the court. See,
e.g., Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000). Defendants’

arguments for reconsidering the July 1, 2026 amended scheduling order have merit,
and were made as soon as practicable following entry of that order. Accordingly, the
court proceeds to reconsider its amended order.

22 Compare doc. no. 72 (Amended Scheduling Order) with doc. no. 73 (Defendants’ Motion
to Reconsider Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines and
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion). See also note 1, supra.
10
The substance of plaintiffs’ argument for reviving their deadline for disclosing
expert witnesses, and that they be permitted to name “rebuttal expert” witness(es),

is contained in the following portion of their motion:
28. The expert disclosure deadline should also be extended so
that Plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to have their day in court.
Discovery has revealed that the impact of Defendants’ defamatory
statements extended far beyond that realized by Plaintiffs at the time the
case was filed, as evident through communications identified and
produced by the Defendants. The deposition of Curtis Brown — the
former attorney for Plaintiffs now providing legal counsel to Defendant
Feek, who was out of the country when his deposition was first noticed
and remains to be deposed — is likely to reveal still further reach.
Quantifying harm of that scale and breadth is not within the ordinary
knowledge of a lay jury and will require expert testimony, and Plaintiffs
could not have framed the scope of that analysis until the facts
establishing the reach of the statements were developed through
discovery. On June 1, 2026, Defendants disclosed expert testimony,
including the opinion of an expert characterizing the Homestead
Heritage community as a coercive or “high-control” organization. The
current Scheduling Order, which set Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures before
Defendants’, affords Plaintiffs no opportunity to disclose an expert to
rebut those opinions. Plaintiffs are entitled to respond to Defendants’
expert testimony, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii), and an extension
is necessary to permit a rebuttal disclosure that the current schedule does
not accommodate. Plaintiffs could not have identified experts with
sufficient information to offer informed opinions on these issues under
the deadlines in the current Scheduling Order.
Doc. no. 71 (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines), ¶ 28.
The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure referenced by plaintiffs addresses the
topic of the “Disclosure of Expert Testimony,” and the relevant portions read as
11
follows:
(D) Time to Disclose Expert Testimony. A party must make
these [i.e., expert witness] disclosures at the times and in the sequence
that the court orders. Absent a stipulation or a court order, the
disclosures must be made:
(i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the
case to be ready for trial; or . . . .
(ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut
evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party
under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C), within 30 days after the other
party’s disclosure.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) (alteration and emphasis supplied).
Defendants observe that plaintiffs failed to disclose an expert by the agreed-
upon, extended deadline of March 1, 2026, and that plaintiffs also did not disclose a
“rebuttal expert” within the thirty-day period following defendants’ expert disclosure,
as specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii). Defendants argue,

therefore, that the time for plaintiffs to disclose an expert witness should not be
extended.
Defendants’ arguments possess facial appeal. Even so, the court concludes that

plaintiffs should be allowed to disclose an expert witness (or witnesses) limited to
rebuttal of subjects addressed by the witnesses disclosed by plaintiffs on June 1,
2026, and that the time for doing so should be extended for thirty days from the date

12
of the entry of this memorandum opinion. To be clear, plaintiffs may not disclose

expert witnesses generally, but are limited to rebuttal witnesses only.
A separate order, consistent with this memorandum opinion, will be entered
contemporaneously herewith.
DONE this 21st day of July, 2026.
ys United States District Judge

13

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11406497. Public record. Not legal advice.