Wood v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 127

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 3/28/2017. (nmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KENNETH E. WOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
. $HIFT SERGEANT RUSSELL, et al.,
Defendants. ·

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 14-476-SLR
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
1. Introduction. Plaintiff Kenneth E. Wood, Jr. ("plaintiff) an inmate at the
James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the American with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12132. He proceeds prose and has been granted.leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Pending are several motions filed by plaintiff.. (D.I. 90, 119, 120)
2. Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery: Plaintiff moves to compel
I

responses to five requests for production of documents served upon defendants
Sergeant Russell and Lieutenant Flint (together "State defendants") on January 22,
2016 (second request) (D.I. 60) and February 26, 2016 (third request) (D.I. 75). (D.I.
119) State defendants responded on April 7 and 8, 2016 and stated that, as to
Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, they either had no documents responsive to the requests
or they did not have custody or control of the information. 1 (D.I. 80, 81)

1

State defendants ultimately provided documents responsive to Request Nos. 3
and 4, said requests seeking housing information for plaintiff and another inmate. (See
D.I. 98, D.I. 103)

3. Request No. 2 sought the complete policy of the Delaware Department of
Correction, effective June 29, 2015. State defendants objected on the grounds that the
request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. The objection is sustained. The court
finds that State defendants have adequately responded to plaintiff's discovery requests.
Therefore, the motion to compel will be denied.
4. Motion to Schedule a Pretrial Conference. Plaintiff moves for the

scheduling of a pretrial .
conference on the grounds that defendants did not file
.

dispositive motions on or before February 21, 2017, the deadline to do so. (D.I. 105)
The court docket reflects that defendants timely filed their motions for summary
judgment on February 21, 2017. (See D.I. 111, 117). Therefore, the court will deny the
motion.

5. Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motions for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff moves to extend time to respond to defendants' motions for summary
judgment. (D.I. 120) The motion is moot, plaintiff having filed his response at docket
item 124. Therefore, the court will deny the motion.
6. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will: (1) deny the motion to
compel and the motion to schedule a pretrial conference (D. I. 90, 119); and (2) deny as
moot the motion for an extension of time to respond to defendants' motions for
summary judgment (D.I. 120). A separate order shall issue.

· Dated: March

.J.f;

, 2017

2