Carson v. Golden Oaks Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell on 5/8/2024. (ca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CARTESHA CARSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GOLDEN OAKS HEALTHCARE, INC.
)
d/b/a THE HEALTH RESORT OF KANSAS )
CITY,
)
)
Defendant.
)

Case No. 23-cv-2388-EFM-ADM

ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Golden Oaks Healthcare, Inc.’s (“Golden
Oaks”) Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses
to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests. (ECF 24.) By way of this motion, Golden Oaks
seeks an extension of the local-rule deadline requiring discovery-related motions to “be filed
within 30 days of the default or service of the response, objection, or disclosure that is the subject
of the motion.” D. KAN. RULE 37.1(c).
Rule 37.1 was amended effective December 1, 2022. It now states that the court may deny
a discovery-related motion “filed after that 30-day period as untimely unless the movant
demonstrates diligence in attempting to resolve the specific discovery dispute at issue.” Id.
(emphasis added). Thus, a party who files a motion to compel after the 30-day deadline must
demonstrate diligence in the motion to compel itself. The rule does not contemplate an earlier, pro
forma motion for an extension of time.
Because of this, the court denies Golden Oaks’s motion as unnecessary. If and when
Golden Oaks ultimately files a motion to compel, the court will expect it to demonstrate in the
motion itself that it acted with diligence in attempting to resolve the discovery dispute at issue.
1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Golden Oaks’s Consent Motion for Extension of
Time (ECF 24) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 8, 2024, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2