Martin v. University of Kansas Cancer Center, The
ORDER granting 21 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff shall respond within thirty (30) days of the date of this order to defendant's requested discovery without objection. All pending deadlines are stayed until plaintiff responds to defendant's discovery. The pretrial conference set for 3/14/2018 is cancelled, and will be rescheduled later. Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius on 3/9/2018. (wh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
Case No. 16-2710-JAR
This matter comes before the court upon defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 21). For
the following reasons, this motion is granted.
This is an employment discrimination action. Plaintiff asserts several claims under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Defendant served discovery upon plaintiff in August
2017. Eventually, after some consultation and efforts to confer on the requested discovery, the
parties stipulated that the discovery served by defendant in August would be treated as if it was
served on December 22, 2017. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to defendant’s requests for
discovery. Defendant filed this motion on February 21, 2018.
In its motion, the defendant seeks to compel plaintiff to respond without objection to
discovery that it has provided. Specifically, defendant seeks an order compelling plaintiff to
respond without objection to its First Request for Production of Documents and First
Interrogatories. Defendant also seeks to stay this action until plaintiff responds to its requested
discovery. Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to defendant’s motion.
Plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s discovery were due on January 22, 2018. Following
plaintiff’s failure to respond, defendant’s counsel contacted plaintiff’s counsel and attempted to
confer concerning the requested discovery.
Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly told defendant’s
counsel that he hoped to get the requested discovery to defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) permits a party who seeks discovery to move
for an order to compel an answer, designation, production, or inspection, if a party fails to provide
discovery or to permit inspection as requested under Rule 34.1
The court finds defendant’s motion is uncontested.
“Absent a showing of excusable
neglect, a party or attorney who fails to file a responsive brief or memorandum within the time
specified in D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d) waives the right to later file such brief or memorandum.”2 The
court ordinarily will consider and decide the motion as uncontested and grant it without further
notice.3 Thus, defendant’s motion shall be granted. In reaching this decision, the court notes that
defendant’s motion includes the certification necessary to demonstrate that steps were taken to
resolve the issues in dispute.4 The court directs plaintiff to respond within thirty (30) days to
defendant’s requested discovery without objection. The court warns plaintiff that failure to comply
with this order will likely result in further sanctions, including possible of dismissal of this action.5
The court stays the proceedings in this case pending plaintiff’s responses to the discovery. The
pretrial conference set for March 14, 2018 is cancelled, and will be rescheduled following
plaintiff’s responses to the requested discovery.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
D. Kan. Rule 7.4(b).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and D. Kan. Rule 37.2.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 21) is
granted. Plaintiff shall respond within thirty (30) days of the date of this order to defendant’s
requested discovery without objection.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending deadlines are stayed until plaintiff
responds to defendant’s discovery. The pretrial conference set for March 14, 2018 is cancelled,
and will be rescheduled later.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ K. Gary Sebelius
K. Gary Sebelius
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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?