Price v. Leblanc et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, Summary Judgment, and additional Document Requests and 23 Motion to Dismiss the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as Premature and to Strike the Affidavits of Ronnie Plauche and Trish Foster as Exhibits to the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 3/30/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLEOTHUS O. PRICE (#398352)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
JAMES LeBLANC, ET AL.

NO. 14-0333-JWD-RLB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Complete
Discovery, Summary Judgment, and additional Document Requests (R. Doc. 20) and Motion to
Dismiss the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Premature and to Strike the
Affidavits of Ronnie Plauche and Trish Foster as Exhibits to the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 23). These Motions are not opposed.
To the extent that the plaintiff seeks an extension of time within which to propound
discovery to the defendants, this request shall be denied. At the time that the plaintiff filed the
instant motion, the discovery period had not yet elapsed and, as a result, the plaintiff’s request
for an extension was premature. Since that time, the plaintiff has propounded written discovery
to the defendants, and it appears that, with the exception of the plaintiff’s request for production
of documents, the defendants have responded thereto. Accordingly, there is no need for an
extension of time to propound discovery.
In the plaintiff’s Motion for Extension, the plaintiff also sought leave to propound a total
of eight requests for production of documents to the defendants (instead of the five (5) requests
authorized by the Court in its Order of July 17, 2014 (R. Doc. 6), and the plaintiff filed the
referenced requests into the record. See R. Doc. 21. The defendants have neither opposed the
plaintiff’s request to propound a total of eight (8) document requests nor submitted any

responses to the propounded requests. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the plaintiff’s request
to propound eight (8) document requests be granted and that the defendants be ordered to
respond thereto.
Finally, the plaintiff also opposes the defendants’ pending Motion for Summary
Judgment as premature, requests an extension of time to respond thereto, and seeks to strike two
affidavits attached to the defendants’ motion, one as unsigned and invalid and the other as
irrelevant. First, the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is not premature as such
because there is no designated period before which such a motion may be filed. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56. Notwithstanding, inasmuch as the Court will direct the defendants to respond to the
plaintiff’s outstanding requests for the production of documents, the Court finds it appropriate to
also grant the plaintiff a brief period of time thereafter to supplement his response to the
defendants’ motion. Finally, inasmuch as the defendants have been allowed to submit a signed
affidavit in the place of the previously-submitted unsigned affidavit of Ronnie Plauche, and
inasmuch as the Court finds the affidavit of Trish Foster to be relevant to the issues before the
Court, the Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to strike the two referenced affidavits.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Complete Discovery,
Summary Judgment, and additional Document Requests (R. Doc. 20) be and it is hereby
GRANTED IN PART, such that the plaintiff is granted leave to propound the eight (8) requests
for production of documents docketed as R. Doc. 21, and the defendants are directed to respond
thereto within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment as Premature and to Strike the Affidavits of Ronnie Plauche and
Trish Foster as Exhibits to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 23) be and

it is hereby GRANTED IN PART, such that the plaintiff if granted a period of thirty (30) days
after receipt of the defendants’ responses to the plaintiff’s document requests to supplement his
opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motions (R. Docs. 20 and 23) be and
they are hereby OTHERWISE DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 30, 2015.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE