White v. DeLaoja et al

Filing 135

ORDER VACATING, in Part, Prior Order 132 Requiring Expedited Response and Response to Requests for Production. The parties should carefully review the body of the order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 10/3/2011. (dkc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
STEPHEN L. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DET. DE LA OSA,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
ORDER VACATING, IN PART, PRIOR ORDER (DE# 132) REQUIRING
EXPEDITED RESPONSE AND RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
This cause is before me again on (DE# 129) Defendant’s Motion to Extend Discovery by
120 Days Solely for Defendant to Conduct Additional Discovery Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to
Comply with his Discovery Obligations and Defendant’s requests for production. This order
supplements in part and vacates in part my previous order (DE# 132), as described below.
Earlier today, the Undersigned entered an order requiring Plaintiff to respond to
Defendant’s requests for production within 14 days. (DE# 132.) Simultaneously with my
entering that order, the Clerk of Court uploaded several new filings onto the CM/ECF system,
including Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s requests for production. 1 (DE# 130.) These
responses moot the requirement in my earlier order (DE# 132) that Plaintiff file the same
responses within 14 days. Consequently, the Undersigned hereby vacates in part that order
(DE# 132) to the extent of that requirement. Plaintiff need not re-serve or re-file his responses to
the document requests.
In my order dated August 23, 2011, I ordered Plaintiff to serve these responses no later
than September 9, 2011. (DE# 117.) But the certificate of service on his responses indicates
1

Because Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, Plaintiff mails paper copies of his
filings to the Court and the Clerk of Court uploads the filings onto the CM/ECF system. In
contrast, a typical attorney filer will upload documents directly on the CM/ECF system, which
results in instantaneous delivery to the Court and all other parties.
1

Plaintiff did not mail the responses until September 29, 2011. (DE# 130, p. 8.) Given the
untimely nature of these responses and Defendant’s most recent notice informing the Court that
Defendant had not yet received the responses (DE# 128), Defendant’s position on the sufficiency
of these responses is unclear. Consequently, Defendant may, if he wishes, file an appropriate
discovery motion relating to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s document request responses within ten
days.
To summarize:
(1) The Undersigned’s previous order (DE# 132) is vacated to the extent that
Plaintiff, having already responded to Defendant’s requests for production,
need not file another response pursuant to the earlier order.
(2) The Undersigned’s previous order (DE# 132) is supplemented to the extent
that Defendant may file, if he wishes, an appropriate discovery motion
relating to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s responses to his requests for
production (DE# 130).
The requirement in my earlier order (DE# 132) that Plaintiff must file an expedited
response to Defendant’s motion for extension of the discovery period (DE# 129) remains in
effect.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of October,
2011.

Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Alan S. Gold
Stephen L. White, pro se
DC# 846849
Jefferson Correctional Institution
1050 Big Joe Road
Monticello, Florida 32344-0430
All counsel of record
2