Gause #162805 v. Indy et al

Filing 127

ORDER striking Plaintiff's 123 "Discovery Production." FURTHER ORDERED denying 124 "Motion Ordering Production." FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's 125 "Motion Requesting that Discovery deadline be exten ded past October 14th 2016." Discovery due by 10/28/2016. Dispositive motions due by 12/28/2016. The Court's denial of Plaintiff's 88 "Motion Requesting Leave to make 2nd Amendment to complaint" is affirmed. (Doc. 122 at 8). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 9/30/2016. (ATD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Richard LeGrand Gause,

No. CV-15-02514-JJT-ESW

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Unknown Indy, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

After the Court filed its Order (Doc. 122), the Court received four additional

17

filings from Plaintiff. The Court issues the following orders with respect to those filings.

18

I. DISCUSSION

19

A. “Discovery Production” (Doc. 123)

20

Plaintiff’s “Discovery Production” (Doc. 123) is a disclosure. Because Petitioner

21

has not yet “used” the disclosure in this proceeding, the filing of the “Discovery

22

Production” (Doc. 123) instead of a “Notice of Service” violates the Federal and Local

23

Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d); LRCiv 5.2. The filing (Doc. 123) will be

24

stricken. The Court deems September 28, 2016 the date the disclosure was served.

25

B. “Motion Ordering Production” (Doc. 124)

26

Defendant Utterbeck stated that he served his response to Plaintiff’s amended

27

discovery request on September 22, 2016 in a “Notice of Service of Discovery Response”

28

(Doc. 121) filed that same date.

In his “Motion Ordering Production” (Doc. 124),

1

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Utterbeck’s response was insufficient. Plaintiff does not

2

certify that he attempted to resolve the matter with Defendant Utterbeck through personal

3

consultation and sincere effort before filing the Motion (Doc. 124). LRCiv 7.2(j). In

4

addition, Plaintiff’s filing of a discovery motion instead of a request for a discovery

5

conference violates the Scheduling Order (Doc. 19 at 3). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s

6

“Motion Ordering Production” (Doc. 124).
C. “Motion Requesting that Discovery deadline be extended past October
14th 2016” (Doc. 125)

7
8

Plaintiff timely requests the Court to extend the October 14, 2016 discovery

9
10
11

deadline. This is the first request for an extension of the discovery deadline. The Court
finds good cause in the record to grant a two week extension (to October 28, 2016).

12

D. “Response to Defendants Sur-Reply to Second Motion to Amend” (Doc.
126)

13

In the Court’s Order (Doc. 122) docketed on September 29, 2016, the Court

14

granted Defendants Ende and Rojas’ “Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Plaintiff’s

15

Second Motion to Amend (Doc. 88)” (Doc. 118). The Court allowed the sur-reply

16

because Plaintiff submitted for the first time his proposed Second Amended Complaint

17

with his reply (Doc. 107) to Defendants Ende and Rojas’ opposition (Doc. 104) to his

18

“Motion Requesting Leave to make 2nd Amendment to complaint” (Doc. 88).

19

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s “Response to Defendants Sur-Reply to

20

Second Motion to Amend” (Doc. 126), which was docketed after the Court’s Order (Doc.

21

122).

22

Amendment to complaint” (Doc. 88) is affirmed.

The Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting Leave to make 2nd

23

II. CONCLUSION

24

Based on the foregoing,

25

IT IS ORDERED striking Plaintiff’s “Discovery Production” (Doc. 123).

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying “Motion Ordering Production” (Doc.

27
28

124).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting that

-2-

1

Discovery deadline be extended past October 14th 2016” (Doc. 125).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the discovery deadline to October 28,

3

2016. The dispositive motion deadline is extended to December 28, 2016. All other

4

orders and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 19) are affirmed.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s “Motion
Requesting Leave to make 2nd Amendment to complaint” (Doc. 88). (Doc. 122 at 8).
Dated this 30th day of September, 2016.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-