Menyweather v. Department of Correction Serv. et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff's "Motion for Extention of Time" (Filing No. 21 ) is granted and Plaintiff is given until October 10, 2017, to file his "Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents." All othe r dates set forth in the court's progression order (Filing No. 2 0) are unaffected by this Memorandum and Order. 2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents" (Filing No. 22 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LATITUS ROMALE
MENYWEATHER,
4:17CV3040
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

vs.
DOSSOU, Officer, Corpal;
Defendant.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extention of Time”
(Filing No. 21) and “Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents” (Filing
No. 22).
I.

“Motion for Extention of Time”

Plaintiff seeks additional time to serve the court and Defendant with his
“Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents.” The progression order
entered in this case required all interrogatories, requests for admission and requests
for production or inspection be served by September 22, 2017. (Filing No. 20.)
Because Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents”
on the same date as his request for an extension of time, the court will grant
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extention of Time.” Plaintiff is granted until October 10,
2017, to file his “Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents,” which
Plaintiff has done and Defendant should have received notice of such filing.
II.

“Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents”

This court will not facilitate discovery between the parties unless it is called
upon to resolve a dispute over which the parties cannot reach an agreement.
Pursuant to NECivR 7.1(i),
To curtail undue delay in the administration of justice, this
court only considers a discovery motion in which the moving party, in
the written motion, shows that after personal consultation with
opposing parties and sincere attempts to resolve differences, the
parties cannot reach an accord. This showing must also state the date,
time, and place of the communications and the names of all
participating persons. “Personal consultation” means person-to-person
conversation, either in person or on the telephone. An exchange of
letters, faxes, voice mail messages, or emails is also personal
consultation for purposes of this rule upon a showing that person-toperson conversation was attempted by the moving party and thwarted
by the nonmoving party.
Plaintiff has not complied with NECivR 7.1(i), and his “Motion for
Production and Inspection of Documents” is denied without prejudice to
reassertion.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extention of Time” (Filing No. 21) is granted
and Plaintiff is given until October 10, 2017, to file his “Motion for Production and
Inspection of Documents.” All other dates set forth in the court’s progression
order (Filing No. 20) are unaffected by this Memorandum and Order.
2.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents”
(Filing No. 22) is denied without prejudice to reassertion.

2

Dated this 13th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3