Martin v Teusch et al

Filing 164

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 161 Joint MOTION strike plaintiff's belated discovery request re 159 Request for Admissions, 158 Request for Admissions, 160 Request for Admissions filed by Matthew Teusch, Jason Ward, Indiana State Police Dept. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE the pltf's belated discovery requests (Docket #158,159, and 160). Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/17/11. (jcp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW TEUSCH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:09-cv-321

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Strike the pro se Plaintiff’s
untimely discovery. (Docket # 161.) The Defendants ask the Court to strike three sets of
Requests for Admissions (Docket ## 158, 159, and 160) that the Plaintiff filed on May 20,
2011—nearly six months after the November 16, 2010, close of discovery. (See Docket # 121.)
On May 24, 2011, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a Response to the Motion by June 10,
2011, yet he has failed to do so.
The Court imposes discovery deadlines with the clear expectation that the parties will
abide by them, absent some showing of good cause for an appropriate enlargement. Indeed,
“[c]ourts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that parties abide by scheduling orders to ensure
prompt and orderly litigation.” United States v.1948 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., 270 F.3d
1102, 1110 (7th Cir. 2001). In addition, just because the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se does not
mean he has special dispensation when it comes to the procedural rules. See Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806, 834-35 n. 46 (1975) (proceeding pro se is not a license to disregard the
relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th
Cir. 2001); Members v. Paige, 140 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[Procedural] rules apply to

uncounseled litigants and must be enforced.”).
Here, the Plaintiff had ample time to file his discovery requests or seek an extension of
time, yet he inexplicably chose not to. Instead, he filed a barrage of discovery requests almost
six months after the November 16, 2010, deadline for the completion of all discovery.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not responded to the Defendants’ Motion to Strike, and apparently
does not oppose the Motion. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 7.1(a) (explaining that “[f]ailure to file a
response or reply within the time prescribed may subject the motion to summary ruling.”); see
also Niebur v. Town of Cicero, 90 F. Supp. 2d 930, 931-32 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (dismissing claim
because plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to dismiss). Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion
to Strike (Docket # 161) is GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to strike the Plaintiff’s belated
discovery requests. (Docket ## 158, 159, and 160.)

SO ORDERED
Enter for June 17, 2011
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge