Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al

Filing 96

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 93 MOTION FEDERAL Rules of Civil Proced. 60(a),(b) Mistake, Inadvertence, Newly Discovered Evidence, "Excusable Negelct", or Good Cause filed by Anthony C Martin. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/4/2013. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FORT WAYNE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-CV-350

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the “Federal Rules of Civil
Proced.

60(a),

(b)

Mistake,

Inadvertence,

Newly

Discovered

Evidence, “Excusable Neglect,” or Good Cause,” filed by pro se
Plaintiff, Anthony C. Martin, on January 17, 2013 (DE #93).

For

the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his First Request for Admissions on October
19, 2012, and his Third Request for Discovery on October 22, 2012.
The discovery deadline was originally set in this case for August
20, 2012.
deadline

On August 17, 2012, the Court extended the discovery
to

October

22,

2012

(at

Plaintiff’s

request),

and

cautioned the parties that no further extensions would be granted.
In that same order, Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey specifically

reminded the parties that “[s]ince October 22, 2012, [was] the
deadline for the completion of discovery, any discovery should be
initiated at the latest, 30 days before that date.”

(DE #64.)

Despite that admonition, Plaintiff served his first request for
admissions 3 days before the discovery cutoff and his third request
for discovery on the same day as the discovery cutoff.
Defendants moved to strike Plaintiff’s first request for
admissions and third request for discovery as untimely (DE #78),
and the Court, in a detailed and well-reasoned opinion, granted the
motion to strike.

(See DE #88.)

Magistrate Judge Cosbey did not

find good cause for the late filings, finding that Plaintiff’s busy
pro se litigation schedule did not constitute good cause, nor are
pro se litigants exempt from the general procedural rules.

Id.

Plaintiff now files the instant motion under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b), claiming he misunderstood the time
line, and that he “was under the impression that as long as he had
made the deadline in Oct. 22, 2012, the defendants [were] obligated
[to respond to discovery].”

(DE #93, p. 3.)

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows the Court to
“correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part
of the record.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

2

Such a mistake or error

needs to be one made by the Court and found in an order.

This rule

does not excuse mistakes made by a pro se party in calculating the
time in which to serve discovery. Judge Cosbey specifically warned
Martin that “[s]ince October 22, 2012, [was] the deadline for the
completion of discovery, any discovery should be initiated at the
latest, 30 days before that date.”

(DE #64); see Shadle v. First

Fin. Bank, N.A., No. 1:09-cv-37, 2009 WL 3787006, at *2 (N.D. Ind.
Nov. 10, 2009) (citing several cases from this circuit holding that
defendants had no obligation to answer discovery from pro se
plaintiff on the eve of deadline, and concluding even pro se
plaintiffs should have known that they need to serve discovery
requests at least thirty days prior to the close of discovery).
Thus, there is no “clerical mistake or a mistake arising from
oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order,
or other part of the record,” from which this Court can grant
relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

Martin had nine months to conduct

discovery, which was ample time in this case.
Rule 60(b)(1) states the Court may relieve a party from an
order for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
Again, there is no excusable neglect or mistake present here.
Judge Cosbey granted one extension of the discovery deadline and
reminded the parties when discovery must be served.
that deadline.
opinion

Martin missed

Judge Cosbey then issued a thoughtful and thorough

granting

Defendants’

motion

3

to

strike

the

untimely

discovery, and this Court concurs which his reasoning in that
opinion. Rule 60 is not a vehicle to resurrect untimely discovery.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the “Federal Rules of Civil
Proced.

60(a),

(b)

Mistake,

Inadvertence,

Newly

Discovered

Evidence, “Excusable Neglect,” or Good Cause,” filed by pro se
Plaintiff, Anthony C. Martin, (DE #93), is DENIED.

DATED: April 4, 2013

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

4