McCoy v. Fort Wayne City of et al

Filing 66

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 63 MOTION to Request Additional Time for Discovery and Production of Documents by Plaintiff Eric S McCoy. Pla afforded up to/incl 1/16/2012 for the completion of all discovery relating to the pending motion for summary ju dgment and up to/incl 2/15/2012 to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Pla's request for medical records from non-parties Allen County Jail and Westville Correctional Facility can be deferred. Pla is instructed that he must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Subpoena). Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 11/22/2011. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ERIC S. MCCOY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FORT WAYNE, et al.,
Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-18

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a document entitled “Motion to Request Additional Time for
Discovery and Production of Documents” (Docket # 63) filed by pro se Plaintiff Eric McCoy, an
inmate proceeding pro se, requesting that the Court afford him an extension of time to perform
discovery, including obtaining his medical information from non-parties, in order to respond to
Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (Docket # 46). For the following reasons,
McCoy’s request will be GRANTED.
As background, McCoy filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Defendants on January
10, 2011, alleging various civil rights violations arising from a search of his home and his
subsequent arrest for drug-related offenses, and his complaint was screened pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A on June 22, 2011. (Docket # 1, 15.) Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on all claims on September 28, 2011. (Docket # 46.)
Five days later, on October 3, 2011, McCoy sent his first request for production of
documents to Defendants. (Docket # 46.) The Court conducted a scheduling conference on
October 12, 2011, directing that Defendants respond to McCoy’s outstanding discovery by
October 24, 2011, and that McCoy respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by

November 28, 2011. (Docket # 52.) Defendants timely responded to McCoy’s first discovery
request. (Docket # 54.) McCoy sent a second request for production of documents on November
2, 2011, to which Defendants also timely responded. (Docket # 58, 62.) McCoy then sent two
more discovery requests for documents and interrogatories on November 7 and 17, 2011, and
filed the instant motion. (Docket # 60, 63, 64.)
Of course, “while the court is not to become an advocate, it is incumbent on it to take
appropriate measures to permit the adjudication of pro se claims on the merits, rather than to
order their dismissal on technical grounds.” Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548,
555 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, McCoy’s motion for an extension (Docket # 63) is
GRANTED in that he is afforded up to and including January 16, 2012, for the completion of all
discovery relating to the pending motion for summary judgment, and up to and including
February 15, 2012, to respond to the summary judgment motion.1 However, since Defendants’
motion for summary judgment does not pertain to damages, McCoy’s request for medical
records from non-parties Allen County Jail and Westville Correctional Facility can be deferred.
In any event, McCoy is instructed that he must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45
(Subpoena), a copy of which was sent to him on October 12 (Docket # 52), when seeking
information from non-parties.
SO ORDERED. Entered this 22nd day of November, 2011.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

1

McCoy is reminded that for discovery to be timely, it generally must be served at least thirty days prior to
the discovery deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Shadle v. First Fin. Bank, N.A., No. 1:09-cv-37, 2009 WL
3787006, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009).

2