Ledford et al v. Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 33 First MOTION for Summary Judgment . Responses due by 1/27/2014. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RHONDA LEDFORD, an individual;
RAYMON GREGSTON, an individual; JO
MCKINNEY, an individual; SHANE
PENROD, an individual; KIM
MCCORMICK, an individual; and GRACIE
REYNA, an individual; LISA
LITTLEFIELD, an individual; ADDISON
FORDHAM, an individual; TOM DE KNIF,
an individual; and FRANK FARNWORTH,
an individual,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00326-BLW

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE
CORRECTIONS, an executive department of
the State of Idaho; IDJC DIRECTOR
SHARON HARRIGFELD, in her individual
and official capacities; IDJC JUVENILE
CORRECTIONS CENTER- NAMPA
SUPERINTENDENT BETTY GRIMM, in
her individual and official capacities; and
DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
The Court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement of time to respond to the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants produced over 30,000
documents to plaintiffs on December 12th, just a week prior to the deadline for plaintiffs’
response brief and more than a month after the deadline for producing this material.
Plaintiffs seek additional time to respond in order to (1) evaluate the relevance of these

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1

documents to the motion for summary judgment, and (2) determine whether the
production fulfills the defendants’ discovery obligations.
The defendants do not object to an extension for the former purpose but object to
any extension for the latter purpose. Defendants argue that “plaintiffs could have
requested [the discovery] earlier than November 5, 2013, twenty days before the
dispositive motion deadline.” See Response Brief (Dkt. No. 45) at p.8.
Defendants are correct that if they had timely produced the discovery on
November 4, 2013 – as required by plaintiffs’ request received on October 4th – they
would have a stronger case for denial of this motion. But defendants did not produce the
30,000 documents until December 12th, over a month late. Defendants’ argument
amounts to a plea that plaintiffs should have anticipated defendants would be tardy and
requested the documents even sooner.
The plaintiffs are entitled to the time necessary to review the 30,000 documents to
determine if they fulfill the defendants’ discovery obligations. Barring plaintiffs from
filing motions to compel discovery during the extension period would be to reward
defendants for their late production.
The plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 56(d) for an extension. The
Court will therefore grant the motion for extension and permit plaintiffs to file any
necessary motions to compel discovery (and for fees and costs) during the period of
extension. The Court’s standard mediation requirement will not apply and the motions to
compel may be filed without attempting mediation first.

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2

The Court turns next to the period of the extension. If the defendants would have
filed the documents timely, the plaintiffs would have had 44 days to review the
documents before having to file a response brief. The documents were produced on
December 12, 2013, and 44 days from that date is January 25, 2014, a Saturday. The
Court will therefore order that the response brief be filed on or before the following
Monday, January 27, 2014. If plaintiffs find it necessary to file discovery motions, those
motions, along with any motion for extension of time to file a response brief, shall also be
filed on or before January 27, 2014.
The plaintiffs request in the alternative that the Court deny the motion for
summary judgment. The Court finds that the extension granted is the appropriate remedy
at this time and will not deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment at this time.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for enlargement
of time (docket no. 43) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is granted
to the extent it seeks to extend the time to file a response brief to defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (docket no. 33) to January 27, 2014. If plaintiffs find it necessary to
file discovery motions, those motions, along with any motion for a further extension of
time to file a response brief, shall also be filed on or before January 27, 2014. The
motion is denied in all other respects.

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3

DATED: December 18, 2013

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Memorandum Decision & Order – page 4