Curtis v. Baker et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 101 plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery. Signed on 11/8/11 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra) Modified on 11/8/2011 to acknowledge the order was mailed to Larry Gene Curtis #60400, LANSING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, P.O. Box 2, Lansing, KS 66043 (Beard, Melanie).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
LARRY GENE CURTIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CO I BAKER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:09-CV-06098-DGK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
This pro se § 1983 lawsuit arises from Plaintiff’s alleged fall from the top bunk onto the
cell floor while in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections. Plaintiff is suing the
corrections officer who allegedly ignored a medical restriction that he not be placed in a top
bunk. This case is currently set for a jury trial beginning November 14, 2011.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Complaint,” which is a
misnomer because it is really a request for the Court to reopen discovery and issue a subpoena on
the custodian of records for the Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron for the following
items: Defendant Baker’s time card for September 6-7, 2007; “video of 9-6-07 from 6 p.m. to 1
a.m.;” “video of 9-22-07 medical emergency;” and inventory records of Plaintiff’s property at
the time of his admittance to housing unit number two. Defendant opposes the request, noting
this is the second time after the close of discovery that Plaintiff has requested discovery be reopened. Defendant argues Plaintiff could have requested these documents at any time prior to
the last two weeks before trial, and that it is unlikely the materials could be located and produced
without moving the trial setting.

“Once discovery has closed in a case, it is the court’s discretion whether or not to allow it
to be reopened.” Boardman v. Nat’l Med. Enter., 106 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 1997). Here the
requested discovery does not appear to be particularly important. These items appear to relate to
undisputed matters, such as whether Defendant Baker was on duty that day, or whether a medical
team was called to the scene. At the same time, the timely administration of justice requires that
scheduling orders be respected and that discovery not be reopened unless there is a real need to
do so. The Court cannot say that is the case here. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 8, 2011

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2