Smalley v. Gamache et al

Filing 80

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 79 MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Case Management Order - Amended, filed by Plaintiff James H. Smalley motion is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 6/28/2012. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES SMALLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL GAMACHE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV319 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of my June 13, 2012
Order. Plaintiff complains that he is confused by the Court’s Order that discovery motions, not
discovery materials, be filed. This is standard practice under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Requests for interrogatories and production of documents are not motions and should
not be filed with the Court. Instead they only need to be served upon defendants. Plaintiff also
complains that the Court granted both parties an extension of time to complete discovery, arguing
that this somehow shows favoritism to defendants. It does not. As this Order explained, the
extension of time was granted because there was confusion by both parties about what discovery
remained outstanding. If plaintiff contends he is owed additional discovery, he should comply
with my June 13, 2012 Order and ask for that discovery. The Court also notes that it has granted
numerous extensions of time in this case because plaintiff claimed he needed additional time to
prepare his case. If plaintiff does not obtain the discovery he thinks he is entitled to from this last
round of discovery, then he may file a motion to compel after attempting to resolve the dispute
with defendants in accordance with the local rules. But I am not going to reconsider my prior
Order granting additional time to complete discovery.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [#79] is denied.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of June, 2012.

-2-