McGee v. Edwards
Filing
72
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 05/17/2012. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 17 May, 2012 05:27:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
CHARLES E. MCGEE, #N87707,
Plaintiff,
v.
STIRLING O. EDWARDS, DAVID
CARLOCK, and JOHN FELD,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-3152
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File Motions Instanter (d/e 63). Plaintiff seeks leave to file five separate
documents, which Plaintiff nonetheless filed. See d/e 61, 62, 64, 65, 66.
First, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a reply (filed as d/e 64) in support
of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Admissions (d/e
54). However, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (d/e 54)
on April 11, 2012 and directed Defendants to respond to the First Set of
Admissions on or before April 24, 2012. Moreover, replies are generally
not permitted. See CDIL-LR 7.1(B)(3). Therefore, this Court denies
Plaintiff leave to file the reply (d/e 64) and the reply is stricken.
Second, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a response (d/e 65) to
Defendants’ Motion to Compel (d/e 59), which sought to compel
Plaintiff to answer Defendant Edwards’ First Set of Interrogatories. This
Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Compel on April 24, 2012 after
Plaintiff failed to respond and directed Plaintiff to serve his response to
the discovery on or before May 14, 2012.
In the proposed response (d/e 65) to the Motion to Compel,
Plaintiff asserts that he did not respond to the Interrogatories because the
Interrogatories were directed to “Abel Lucio, #15681.” Plaintiff asks
that the Court either deny the Motion to Compel or order Defendant
Edwards to rewrite the Interrogatories to include the correct name.
This Court grants Plaintiff leave to file the untimely response to
Defendants’ Motion to Compel (d/e 65). However, Defendants’ Motion
to Compel remains granted. The Interrogatories were correctly
captioned. The reference to another inmate in the body of the
Interrogatories was clearly a typographical error. Plaintiff is directed to
Page 2 of 5
respond to Defendant Edwards’ First Interrogatories to Plaintiff on or
before June 4, 2012.
Third, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a response (d/e 66) to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel (d/e 59), which sought to compel
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ First Request for Production of
Documents. (This Court granted the Motion to Compel on April 24,
2012.) In the response, Plaintiff asserts that he did respond to
Defendants’ Request for Documents on February 12, 2012. Plaintiff also
asserts that if defense counsel “insist[s] that she never received the
documents[,] Plaintiff will prepare duplicates and forward it to the
Defendants.”
This Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file the response (d/e 66).
However, the Motion to Compel remains granted. Defense counsel shall
advise Plaintiff whether duplicates are needed.
Fourth, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a response (d/e 62) to
Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (d/e 60) seeking an extension
of the deadline to file dispositive motions. In the response, Plaintiff
Page 3 of 5
asserts he has no objection to the extension of time. This Court granted
Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time on April 11, 2012 and, on
April 24, 2012, set the deadline for June 4, 2012. Therefore, although
unnecessary, this Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file the response (d/e
62).
Fifth, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Motion for Final Extension of
Time (d/e 61), which he filed on April 27, 2012. Defendants have not
filed a response. Plaintiff asks for an extension of the discovery date until
June 21, 2012. Plaintiff asserts that an extension of time is necessary
because of the outstanding issues relating to the motions to compel.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant Feld was served later than the other
two defendants and “therefore he made a late appearance in this matter
which has stalled Discovery Procedure.”
The Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The parties shall have until June 4, 2012 to
complete the discovery already served in this matter. Plaintiff has not
indicated what additional discovery he may need to serve on the
Page 4 of 5
Defendants. Therefore, no new discovery requests may be served by
either party without first seeking an extension of the discovery deadline
and dispositive motion deadline. The dispositive motion deadline in this
case is currently set for June 4, 2012. Because this Court is extending the
deadline to complete outstanding discovery to June 4, 2012, the
dispositive motion deadline is now extended to June 18, 2012.
ENTER: May 17, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?