Sanford v. Douglas County Corrections et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to submit their responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (filing no. 120 ) is granted, but only as provided herein. The Progression Order in thi s matter is modified as follows: A. The parties have until December 28, 2010, to complete joint discovery. B. All dispositive motions shall be filed on or before January 27, 2011. C. No further extensions of time will be permitted. 2. The Clerk of th e court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: February 7, 2011: deadline for court to review status of this matter. 3. The Final Pretrial Conference scheduled in this case for October 28, 2010, is cancelled. 4. All pending motions are denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
-PRSE Sanford v. Douglas County Corrections et al
D o c . 121
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA R O B E R T E. SANFORD, Plaintiff, v. U N K N O W N NEWTON, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8 :0 8 C V 2 6 1
M EM ORANDUM AND ORDER
T h is matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time in w h ic h to submit their responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. (Filing N o . 120.) For good cause shown, Defendants' Motion will be granted and the Progression O rd e r will be modified, as set forth below. I . BACKGROUND O n November 30, 2009, the court issued an Order setting a schedule for the p ro g re s s io n of this case. (Filing No. 66.) This Order required the parties to serve in te rr o g a to rie s and requests for admission by December 30, 2009. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.) T h e Order also required that the parties file all motions to compel by February 8, 2010. (Id. a t CM/ECF p. 2.) On December 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed Requests for Production of D o c u m e n ts , Admissions, and Interrogatories with the court. (Filing Nos. 73, 74, and 75.) H o w e v e r, Plaintiff failed to serve these discovery requests on Defendants. Thus, on the c o u rt's own Motion, Plaintiff was given until April 6, 2010, to serve discovery requests on D e f e n d a n ts , and Defendants were given until May 6, 2010, to respond to those requests. (F ilin g No. 86 at CM/ECF p. 2.) On May 6, 2010, counsel for Defendants, Pamela J. D a h lq u is t ("Dahlquist"), filed a Notice of Service of Discovery. (Filing No. 89.) Plaintiff s u b s e q u e n tly filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (filing no. 97), and a Motion for Sanctions f o r failure to comply with discovery (filing no. 114). In Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, P la in tif f states that "Defendants never responded to [his] discovery requests." (Id. at C M /E C F p. 1.)
O n September 14, 2010, Attorney Kristin M. Lynch ("Lynch") entered her appearance a s counsel for Defendants. (Filing No. 115.) On September 24, 2010, Lynch, on behalf of D ef e n d a n ts , filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions in which she asked the court f o r an order reopening discovery because former counsel for Defendants, Dahlquist, "was re c en tly separated from her employment with the Douglas County Attorney" and "[t]he D o u g la s County Attorney's Office cannot locate former counsel Dahlquist's files . . . and c a n n o t produce copies of the discovery responses [Dahlquist] served upon Plaintiff on May 6 , 2010." (Filing No. 120 at CM/ECF p. 2.) I I . ANALYSIS P la in tif f alleges that Defendants never responded to his discovery requests. (Filing N o . 114 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Defendants do not dispute that prior counsel may have failed to re sp o n d to Plaintiff's discovery requests, insomuch as they claim they cannot locate prior c o u n se l's files and cannot produce copies of the discovery responses served on Plaintiff. ( S e e Filing No. 120 at CM/ECF p. 2.) In light of this, and because the court cannot d e te rm in e from the record what, if any, discovery responses Defendants have served on P la in tif f , the parties' pending Motions for Summary Judgment will be denied without p re ju d ice to reassertion. Further, Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to s u b m it their responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents will be granted a n d the Progression Order will be modified, as set forth below. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. D e f e n d a n ts' Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to submit their
re s p o n s e s to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (filing no. 120) is granted, but o n ly as provided herein. The Progression Order in this matter is modified as follows: A. B. C. T h e parties have until December 28, 2010, to complete joint discovery. A ll dispositive motions shall be filed on or before January 27, 2011. N o further extensions of time will be permitted.
2. this matter. 3. c a n c e lle d . 4.
T h e Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in
th is case using the following text: February 7, 2011: deadline for court to review status of
T h e Final Pretrial Conference scheduled in this case for October 28, 2010, is
A ll pending motions are denied without prejudice to reassertion.
D A T E D this 30 th day of September, 2010. B Y THE COURT:
s / Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?