Kitchen v. Winn et al

Filing 44

OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 38 Motion to Compel; and GRANTING 41 MOTION TO EXTEND--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL KITCHEN,
Case No. 2:17-cv-11627
Judge George Caram Steeh
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiff,
v.

O’BELL T. WINN, WILLIAM FOY,
NANNIE CULBERSON, THOMAS HAYNES,
KETURAH MORRIS, MARK CHALKER,
BRADLEY ODETTE, BOBBY KARL,
TONY GLYNN, BRIAN TROMBLEY, and
UNKNOWN SUPERVISORS OR GUARDS,
Defendants.
__________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S NOVEMBER 6, 2018 MOTION (DE 38) and GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S DECEMBER 13, 2018 MOTION (DE 41)
I.

OPINION
A.

Background

Michael Kitchen is currently incarcerated at the MDOC’s Carson City
Correctional Facility (DRF). See www.michigan.gov/corrections. On May 19,
2017, while incarcerated at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF),
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against ten named Defendants, each of whom is
described as an employee of the Saginaw Correctional Facility (SRF) and

1 

represented by the Attorney General’s Office. (DEs 1, 11.) Judge Steeh has
referred this case to me for all pretrial proceedings.
B.

Discovery and Dispositive Motion Practice

It appears that, during August 2017, Plaintiff served several discovery
requests, including: (1) his first set of interrogatories (DE 35 at 5-7); (2) his first
set of admissions (DE 35 at 8-13); (3) his first request for the production of
documents (DE 35 at 15); and, (4) a subpoena to Defendant Winn and/or SRF,
which provided a due date of September 10, 2017 (DE 35 at 16-18). Defendant
Winn responded to the subpoena by way of a letter dated September 6, 2017. (DE
35 at 19.) At the same time, Defendants filed both a motion for summary
judgment (DE 25) and a motion for protective order (DE 26).
On April 20, 2018, I entered an order granting Defendants’ motion for
protective order, staying discovery pending this Court’s ruling upon Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (DE 25), and providing that the stay of discovery
would automatically lift once the Court issues its ruling. (DE 32 at 2.) My report
and recommendation (R&R) of the same date recommended that the Court deny
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent it seeks dismissal on the
basis of failure to exhaust, but grant the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims for money damages against defendants in their official capacities.
(DE 31 at 18.)
2 

On May 22, 2018, the Court accepted my R&R, granted in part and denied
in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Plaintiff’s
claims for money damages against Defendants in their official capacities. (DE 33.)
Thus, the stay of discovery was automatically lifted on that date, and the clock for
answering or responding to any outstanding discovery requests began to run.
C.

Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel and the Court’s Order Setting
Deadlines

On July 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and to enforce
a subpoena. (DE 35.) On September 4, 2018, I entered an order granting
Plaintiff’s motion as unopposed. (DE 36.) Among other things, the order
provided:
No later than Tuesday, September 18, 2018, Defendants SHALL
serve Plaintiff with responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories,
first set of admissions, and first request for the production of
documents, and Defendant O’Bell (and/or SRF) SHALL produce
documents in accordance with the aforementioned subpoena. Given
the amount of time these discovery requests and this motion have been
pending, Defendants’ apparent failure to respond to the requests once
the stay was automatically lifted on May 22, 2018, and Defendants’
failure to respond to the instant motion, any objections that were not
served in response to these requests within the applicable deadlines
established under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36, and 45 are deemed waived.
(DE 36 at 3-4 (boldface in original, italics added).) Then, on September 11, 2018,
I entered an order setting the Discovery Deadline for November 6, 2018 and the
Dispositive Motion Cutoff for December 6, 2018. (DE 37.)
D.

Pending Matters
3 

Currently pending before the Court are some matters related to discovery
and case management deadlines. The first pending matter is Plaintiff’s November
6, 2018 motion to compel discovery, to extend discovery cut-off & to permit
motion for sanctions (DE 38), regarding which Defendants have filed a response
(DE 39), and Plaintiff has filed a reply (DE 42).
Meanwhile, Defendants filed a December 3, 2018 motion for extension of
time to file motion for summary judgment (DE 40), which the Court granted by
way of a December 4, 2018 text-only order, a copy of which was served upon
Plaintiff at DRF. Specifically, the discovery deadline was extended to Monday,
January 7, 2019, and the dispositive motion deadline was extended to Wednesday,
February 6, 2019.
The second pending matter is Plaintiff’s December 13, 2018 motion to
extend dispositive motion cut-off date to “120 days from the date that this Court
decides this motion[.]” (DE 41.)
E.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (DE 38 at 7-13)

Plaintiff asks this Court to “require the Defendants to respond to discovery
requests,” and to “comply with the Court’s [September 4, 2018] discovery order
[DE 36][.]” (DE 38 at 1.) He also seeks to “enforce a subpoena,” and obtain
answers/responses to his September 28, 2018 discovery requests. (DE 38 at 6.)

4 

Defendants admit that they “mistakenly missed deadlines for early discovery
requests and responding to Plaintiff’s July 12, 2018, Motion to Compel (DE 35) . .
. .” (DE 39 at 3.) However, they also claim that, since August 2018, “Defendants
have complied with all discovery requests sent from Plaintiff.” (Id.; see also DE
39 at 13.)
1.

Defendant Winn’s and/or SRF’s failure to produce
requested documents & respond to subpoena

The first part of Plaintiff’s motion to compel concerns: (i) his August 2,
2017 first request for the production of documents (DE 38 at 17-18); (ii)
Defendants Morris and Winn’s August 17, 2018 responses thereto (DE 38 at 1922); (iii) the August 7, 2017 subpoena issued to Warden O’Bell Winn and/or SRF
– which provided a due date of September 10, 2017 – and Defendant Winn’s
August 17, 2018 response and objections (DE 38 at 38-44); (iv) Defendant
Morris’s August 17, 2018 response and objections to Plaintiff’s July 23, 2018
subpoena (DE 38 at 45-47; see also DE 39-3); and, (v) Defendant Winn’s
September 18, 2018 amended response and objections to Plaintiff’s subpoena (DE
38 at 48-50; see also DE 39-2). (See DE 38 at 7-9).
a.

The Court will acknowledge the August 17, 2018
objections.

The Court acknowledges Defendants’ argument that, because their August
17, 2018 discovery responses pre-date the Court’s September 4, 2018 order, their
5 

objections were not “deemed waived” by the subsequent order granting Plaintiff’s
motion to compel as unopposed (DE 36). (DE 39 at 4-5.) However, as Plaintiff
points out, the Court’s September 4, 2018 order deemed waived “any objections
that were not served in response to these requests within the applicable deadlines
established under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36, and 45 . . .[,]” (DE 36 at 4). (See DE
42 at 2 (emphasis added).) If the stay of discovery automatically lifted on May 22,
2018, then Plaintiff could reasonably have expected Defendants’ outstanding
discovery responses on or about June 21, 2018. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) (“The
party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after
being served . . . .”). The responses at issue here are dated August 17, 2018, which
is (i) fifty-seven days after they could reasonably have been expected; and, (ii)
over a year after the requests dated August 2017 appear to have been served.
Nonetheless, even if the objections asserted on August 17, 2018 were
untimely at that point, the Court’s September 4, 2018 order provided:
“approximately 51 days passed between the automatic lift of the stay of discovery
and Plaintiff’s [July 12, 2018] filing of the instant motion; therefore, Defendants
and/or the MDOC shall not now respond with objections to the discovery requests
and/or the subpoena.” (DE 36 at 4 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, the Court will
not retroactively apply its September 4, 2018 order to negate objections lodged on
August 17, 2018, even if they were lodged in the wake of Plaintiff’s July 12, 2018
6 

motion to compel. In their response to the instant motion, Defendants admit to
“mistakenly missed deadlines for early discovery requests . . . [,]” (DE 39 at 3),
and, the August 17, 2018 responses and/or objections were served without this
Court’s intervention.
In sum, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s initial motion to compel was
filed on July 12, 2018 (DE 35), certain Defendants provided responses and/or
objections on August 17, 2018, and, Defendants not having filed a response to that
motion to compel, the Court entered its September 4, 2018 order granting the
motion as unopposed (DE 36). The Court further recognizes that, in a technical
sense, Defendants waived any objections lodged on August 17, 2018, not because
of the Court’s forthcoming order but because the objections would have been tardy
under Fed. Rules Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). Nonetheless, the Court will
acknowledge these tardy objections, as it understands the calendar confusion that
may have taken place in light of the Court-imposed “self-executing or automatic”
lift of the stay of discovery. In other words, what appears to be Defendants’
inadvertent failure to keep track of their discovery response deadlines is
understandable and excused by the Court.
b.

The requests at issue

The Court will issue a ruling on those items specifically discussed in
Plaintiff’s December 13, 2018 reply. (See DE 42 at 2-5.) First, Plaintiff takes
7 

issue with Defendant Winn’s (and Morris’s) August 17, 2018 response via counsel
– “Please see attached documents.” – to Plaintiff’s August 2, 2017 first request for
production of documents No. 1 (DE 38 at 18, 21). According to Defendants, they
“provided all relevant requested grievances and documents, responsive to his
requests[,]” and “provided Plaintiff with all grievances, kites, or documents
responsive to his request which involved Defendant Morris and Plaintiff.” (DE 39
at 4-5 (emphases added); see also DE 39 at 7.) However, their November 19, 2018
response brief also raises overbreadth and relevance objections to this request.
(DE 39 at 4-5.) Plaintiff points out that this “current objection” is untimely under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A) and should, therefore, be considered waived. (DE 42 at
2-3). The Court agrees. To the extent Defendants’ November 19, 2018 response
maintains that Plaintiff’s August 2, 2017 request for production of documents No.
1 directed to Defendants Winn and Morris is overly broad and irrelevant (DE 38 at
18, DE 39 at 4-5, 7), these objections are tardy.1 As the Court reads Defendants’

1

This ruling would not apply to Defendant Morris’s August 17, 2018 response and
objections to Plaintiff’s July 23, 2018 subpoena, as it registered overly broad and
relevance objections. (See DE 38 at 45-47; see also DE 39-3.) Additionally, given
Plaintiff’s representation that his July 23, 2018 deposition subpoena “is the same
request in the August 2, 2017 Rule 34 Request for Documents directed at
Defendant Morris[,]” (DE 42 at 5), it would be illogical for this Court to honor
Morris’s August 17, 2018 overbreadth and relevance objections as to the earlierserved July 23, 2018 subpoena request (DE 39-3) but deny such objections as to
the later-served August 2, 2017 request for production.
8 

November 19, 2018 response, Morris and Winn provided what documents they
thought were relevant. (See DE 39 at 4-5). Plaintiff’s August 2, 2017 request for
production of documents No. 1 sought certain matters submitted “against
Defendant Morris” for a more than 4-year period. (DE 38 at 18.) Defendants
Morris and Winn responded on August 17, 2018 – without objection - by referring
to “attached documents.” (DE 38 at 21.) Defendants may not, in their November
19, 2018 response, explain that they (or, Morris and Winn) provided only matters
“which involved Defendant Morris and Plaintiff[,]” (DE 39 at 5) and expect the
Court to honor the tardy overbreadth and relevance objections. Defendants (or,
Winn and Morris) must answer this discovery request as phrased and no later than
February 4, 2019.2
Second, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant Winn’s August 17, 2018
response and objections, via counsel, to Plaintiff’s August 7, 2017 subpoena to
Defendant Winn and/or SRF (DE 38 at 38-44). (See DE 42 at 3-4.) As noted
above, Defendant Winn’s counsel initially responded to the subpoena by way of a
letter dated September 6, 2017, which, in part, informed Plaintiff that “the proper
way to pursue documents from a party in a litigation is through the discovery

2

To clarify, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s tardy August 2018
objections have been excused by the Court. Here, where no objection was lodged
within the August 2018 discovery response, the Court draws the line with
objections made for the first time in Plaintiff’s November 2018 response brief.  
9 

process as governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (DE 35 at 19.)3
Then, Winn’s counsel served both Winn’s August 17, 2018 written response and
objections (DE 38 at 43-44) and, later, a September 18, 2018 amended response
and objections (DE 38 at 48-50), which Defendants claim was done “in a show of
good faith, . . . to comply with the Court’s [September 4, 2018] Order.” (DE 39 at
7.). In most cases, the response was “No documents responsive to this request
exist within Defendant’s custody or control.” (DE 38 at 43-44, 49-50.) To the
extent Plaintiff claims that Defendant Winn’s August 17, 2018 objections were
deemed waived by this Court’s September 4, 2018 order (see DE 42 at 4), the
Court has explained above that it will not retroactively apply its September 4, 2018
order to negate objections lodged on August 17, 2018. Moreover, to the extent
Plaintiff challenges the truthfulness of these responses, the Court declines
Plaintiff’s appeal “to review the requests.” (DE 42 at 4.)
Third, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant Morris’s August 17, 2018
response and objections to Plaintiff’s July 23, 2018 subpoena (DE 38 at 45-47, DE
39-3). (See DE 42 at 4-5.) Construing the July 23, 2018 “subpoena to testify at a
deposition in a civil action” as a request for production to Defendant Morris (see

3

Plaintiff claims that there are similarities between the two subpoenas. And, he
further explains that the July 23, 2018 deposition notice, which was addressed to
Morris, was filed in response to Defendant Winn’s “refusal to respond to the
August 7th Subpoena.” Nonetheless, the Court is perplexed by the import of
Plaintiff’s claimed differences between the two subpoenas. (See DE 42 at 3-4.)
10 

DE 39-3 at 2), any response would have been due on or about August 22, 2018
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), rather than August 6, 2018 under Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(d)(2)(B). Thus, as they related to the subpoena to Odette, the corresponding
response and objections are timely.
2.

September 2018 discovery requests

The second part of Plaintiff’s motion to compel mentions several items,4 but
its focus is: (i) Defendants Winn and Morris’s apparent October 23, 2018 response
to Plaintiff’s September 28, 2018 second request to produce documents (DE 38 at
51-57); and (ii) Defendants Glynn, Trombley, Winn, Morris and Odette’s October
2018 responses to Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories (DE 38 at 74-98). (See
DE 38 at 9-13).
The Court will issue a ruling on those items specifically discussed in
Plaintiff’s December 13, 2018 reply. (See DE 42 at 5-7.) First, Plaintiff’s second
request for production of documents No. 3 sought production of materials
“depicting the source of the information known to Defendants . . . which triggered
the strip and/or so-called cell search against Plaintiff . . .” on December 26, 2016

4

See (i) Defendants Odette and Karl’s January 2017 memoranda about the events
of December 26, 2016 (DE 38 at 99-100, DE 38-1 at 1-2), which Plaintiff
seemingly claims were produced in response to his August 2, 2017 first request for
the production of documents (DE 38 at 17-18); (ii) the August 6, 2018 deposition
transcripts of Defendant Winn and Keturah (Morris) Taylor (DE 38 at 23-31, 3237); and, (iii) Defendants Glynn, Trombley, Odette, Karl’s August 13-14, 2018
responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories (DE 38 at 58-73).
11 

and January 17, 2017. Via counsel, Defendants Winn and Morris responded
“None.” (DE 38 at 54-55.) In response to the instant motion, Defendants claim
that they provided “good-faith responses . . . .” (DE 39 at 9.) In the Court’s
opinion, the response provided is a reasonable response to a document request, as
the requested materials either do or do not exist. Accordingly, the Court declines
to require Defendants “to release the information identifying the source which
triggered the purported cell and strip searches.” (DE 42 at 6.)
Second, Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories asked Winn and Morris five
questions each about their YMCA memberships. Winn and Morris objected on the
basis of relevance and/or that it assumes knowledge. (DE 38 at 84-85, 90-91.) In
response to the instant motion, Defendants claim that “inquiries into the personal
lives of Defendants Winn and Morris are absurdly improper and irrelevant
requests.” (DE 39 at 9.) Here, even if Plaintiff “seeks the information in order to
explore whether any witnesses over heard either Defendant discussing Kitchen and
the allegations underlying this lawsuit[,]” (DE 42 at 6), the Undersigned concludes
that information about Defendants Winn and Morris’s YMCA memberships does
not meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)’s permissible scope of discovery for Plaintiff
lawsuit against SRF prison officials. (DE 1 ¶¶ 5-8, DE 42 at 1.)
Third, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant Odette’s responses to second
interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4. (DE 42 at 6-7.) The Court has reviewed these
12 

interrogatories and the respective responses (DE 38 at 95-96), as well as
Defendants’ related response to the instant motion (DE 39 at 10-11). Upon
consideration, Defendant Odette shall supplement his answer to interrogatory No.
3 (“I was instructed by my supervisor to search him.”) with “the name and current
location of the staff member . . . [,]” (DE 38 at 96), and need only provide the
current location if the staff member is still employed by the MDOC. As for
interrogatory No. 4, which references Odette’s January 4, 2017 memorandum (DE
38 at 100) and basically asks whether Defendant Odette’s December 26, 2016
receipt of permission to conduct a strip search was preceded by his own contact of
the control center or the control center contacting him, Defendant Odette answered,
“No.” (DE 38 at 96.) According to Defendants, “Plaintiff has not considered that
Defendant Odette could have found out about Plaintiff’s contraband on his own,
for example[,]” and they maintain that Defendant Odette’s memorandum “does not
contradict his response[.]” (DE 39 at 10.) Still, Plaintiff “seeks to know how that
permission was obtained.” (DE 42 at 7.) Rather than parsing the complicated
wording of Plaintiff’s interrogatory as drafted and determining whether Defendant
Odette’s answer is complete, Plaintiff has leave to serve Defendant Odette with a
newly drafted interrogatory on this subject.
F.

Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off (DE 38 at 13-14)

13 

Plaintiff’s November 6, 2018 motion seeks an extension of the thenNovember 6, 2018 discovery deadline. (DE 38 at 1, 6, 16.) Plaintiff seeks
“another 90 days” to complete discovery and identify “any other persons involved
in the claims underlying this lawsuit[.]” (DE 38 at 13-14.) In support of this
request, Plaintiff cites: (a) a grievance against Russell Vittow that was initiated in
August / September 2018 (DE 38-1 at 3-5); (b) December 2016 and January 2017
SRF forms documenting “non-routine unclothed prisoner search[es]” (DE 38-1 at
6-9); and, (c) an April 1, 2017 e-mail (DE 38-1 at 10-11).
Defendants oppose this request, arguing, inter alia, that: (a) Plaintiff would
need “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave[,]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2), in order to amend his complaint; (b) Plaintiff has not complied with E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1(a)’s concurrence requirement as to the request for an extension of
discovery; and, (c) Plaintiff’s request for an extension of discovery should be filed
separately from his motion to compel. (DE 39 at 11-12.)
However, as noted above, the Court’s December 4, 2018 text-only order
extended the discovery deadline to Monday, January 7, 2019. Although Plaintiff
has since submitted a reply – dated December 6, 2018 and filed on December 13,
2018 – in which he comments upon Defendants’ arguments and renews his
“request to extend the discovery cut-off date[,]” (DE 42 at 7-8), the Court assumes
that its December 4, 2018 order crossed paths with Plaintiff’s request.
14 

Nonetheless, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request as posed at the time of filing
and extend the discovery deadline to Monday, February 4, 2019. The Court does
not construe Plaintiff’s request as one seeking leave to amend the complaint, and,
at this late stage of the proceedings, would be unlikely to grant one.
G.

Plaintiff’s motion to permit motion for sanctions (DE 38 at 14-15)

Plaintiff asks this Court “to permit a motion to impose sanctions against the
Defendants,” for “the flagrant violations of the Court’s order, in addition to
winning the first [July 12, 2018] motion to compel[.]” (DE 38 at 1, 6, 16.)
Plaintiff contends that Defendants “are not cooperating in discovery,” for example,
by violating the Court’s September 4, 2018 order (DE 36) or filing false or
misleading memoranda from C/O Odette (DE 38 at 100) and C/O Karl (DE 38-1 at
2). Plaintiff claims he has attempted to resolve his discovery dispute with defense
counsel, specifically citing his June 4, August 27, September 12, and September
28, 2018 letters. (DE 38 at 14.)5
Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s August 27th and September 12th letters
“were not an effort to resolve discovery issues,” but, rather, “an attempt to threaten
and bully Defense counsel into a settlement agreement.” (DE 39 at 12, DE 39-4 at
2, DE 39-5 at 2.) Defendants maintain that they have responded to all of Plaintiff’s

5

Plaintiff’s letters dated August 27, 2018 and September 12, 2018 are attached to
Defendants’ response. (DEs 39-4, 39-5.)
15 

discovery requests but that Plaintiff “is simply unhappy with the responses . . . .”
(DE 39 at 13.)
Plaintiff appears to seek leave to file a motion for sanctions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37, and he claims that he “has done more than enough to resolve both the
discovery dispute and this lawsuit prior to seeking sanctions . . . .” (DE 38 at 15,
DE 42 at 9.) However, Plaintiff need not request this Court’s permission to seek
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. He need only file a motion specifying the relief
he seeks, for example, any of the sanctions permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). Accordingly, the portion of his motion seeking leave is denied
as unnecessary.
H.

Plaintiff’s December 13, 2018 motion to extend the dispositive
motion cut-off date (DE 41)

On September 11, 2018, the dispositive motion cut-off was December 6,
2018. (DE 37.) Pursuant to the December 4, 2018 text-only order, the dispositive
motion deadline was extended to February 6, 2019. In Plaintiff’s motion – dated
December 6, 2018 and filed on December 13, 2018 – he seeks to extend the
dispositive motion cut-off date, because of, inter alia, “pending discovery
motions” and “anticipated amendments to the complaint[.]” (DE 41 at 1.)
Specifically, he requests that the Court extend the December 6, 2018
deadline by “120 days from the date that this Court decides this motion,” due to:
(1) his pending November 6, 2018 “motion to compel discovery, to extend
16 

discovery cut-off & to permit motion for sanctions” (DE 38), following which he
hopes “to determine the feasibility of a dispositive motion[;]” and, (2) his effort to
“uncover[] the identity of other prison officials so that he can amend the complaint
to add them as defendants.” (DE 41 at 2-3.) Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s
motion is granted, but the Court will only provide a reasonable extension of the
dispositive motion deadline, namely to thirty (30) days after the close of discovery,
i.e., Wednesday, March 6, 2019. Again, at or near the close of discovery, the
Court is unlikely to grant leave to amend the complaint to add new parties.
II.

ORDER
Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s November 6, 2018 motion (DE 38) is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In sum,


Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (DE 38 at 7-13) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’
November 19, 2018 overbroad and relevance objections (to
Plaintiff’s August 2, 2017 request for production of documents
No. 1 directed to Defendants Winn and Morris) are tardy.
Defendants (or, Winn and Morris) must serve a response to this
request, as phrased, no later than February 4, 2019. As to the
September 2018 requests, Defendant Odette shall supplement
his answer to second interrogatory No. 3 no later than
February 4, 2019, and Plaintiff may serve Defendant Odette
with a newly drafted second interrogatory No. 4 no later than
February 4, 2019 (and Defendant Odette will be required to
respond within the time set by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2).



Plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery cut-off (DE 38 at 1314), as posed at the time of filing, is GRANTED and the
discovery deadline is extended to Monday, February 4, 2019.
17 



Plaintiff’s motion to permit motion for sanctions (DE 38 at 1415) is DENIED as unnecessary.

Finally, Plaintiff’s December 13, 2018 motion to extend the dispositive motion cutoff date (DE 41) is GRANTED, but the dispositive motion deadline is only
extended to Wednesday, March 6, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2019

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on January 18, 2019, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

18