Cobb v. Madlock et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall advise the Court no later than December 2, 2020 regarding (1) whether the parties need more time for discovery and for defendants investigations and (2) whether defendants believe pla intiff requires appointment of counsel in light of their withheld disclosures, and, if not, why not.IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for extension of the discovery deadline [#71] is GRANTED, and the discovery deadline and the deadline for plaintiffs response to defendants motion for summary judgment shall be extended until a date set forth by this Court following defendants response to this Order( Response to Court due by 12/2/2020.). Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/18/20. (MRS)

Case: 1:19-cv-00061-SNLJ Doc. #: 76 Filed: 11/18/20 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 545
DRAFT 11/16/20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
DERRICK COBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRACY MADLOCK, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:19-CV-61-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Derrick Cobb, pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that defendants Donna Wigfall, Omar Clark, and Cindy Griffiths denied him due process
in violation of his constitutional rights regarding the handling of his mail. This matter is
before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel [#61]. Defendants did not initially
respond to the motion, so this Court ordered that they file a response. Defendants have
done so, and plaintiff did not file a reply. Plaintiff has also moved for an extension of the
discovery deadline [#71], but defendants did not respond.
I.

Motion to Compel [#61]
Plaintiff moves to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents.
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that plaintiff failed to comply with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 3.04(A). Those rules require that
plaintiff’s motion include “a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an
effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “[T]he Court will not

Case: 1:19-cv-00061-SNLJ Doc. #: 76 Filed: 11/18/20 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 546

consider any motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless the motion contains such
a certification.” Paige v. Murray, No. 1:12-CV-40 SNLJ, 2013 WL 1342979, at *1 (E.D.
Mo. Apr. 3, 2013).
The motion should also fail on the merits for the reasons stated in defendants’
response. However, defendants’ response—which had to be ordered by this Court—did
not completely respond to this Court’s order. The order stated
The defendants shall include, in addition to addressing the points raised
above, whether the parties need more time for discovery and for defendants’
investigations and whether they believe plaintiff requires appointment of
counsel in light of their withheld disclosures.
[#62 at 5.]
The motion to compel will be denied, but defendants shall respond in accordance
with the above-quoted language.
II.

Motion to Extend Time for Discovery
Despite the Court’s order requiring defendants to explain whether more time is

needed for discovery [#62], defendants did not respond to that requirement, nor did they
respond to plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for discovery. Defendants have a motion
for summary judgment pending, and this Court granted plaintiff until November 27, 2020
by which to respond. In light of the pending discovery questions, though, this Court will
grant the motion to extend the time for discovery and also lengthen the time by which
plaintiff must respond to summary judgment.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [#61] is DENIED.

2

Case: 1:19-cv-00061-SNLJ Doc. #: 76 Filed: 11/18/20 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 547

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall advise the Court no later than
December 2, 2020 regarding (1) whether the parties need more time for discovery and for
defendants’ investigations and (2) whether defendants believe plaintiff requires
appointment of counsel in light of their withheld disclosures, and, if not, why not.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for extension of the
discovery deadline [#71] is GRANTED, and the discovery deadline and the deadline for
plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be extended until
a date set forth by this Court following defendants’ response to this Order.
Dated this

18th

day of November, 2020.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3