McGinley v. Douglas County, Nebraska et al
Filing
31
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (filing 21 ) is denied. However, the parties are directed to confer in an effort to resolve all pending discovery disputes, including scheduling Plaintiff's deposition in a timely manner. Plaintiff's deposition shall not go forward as presently scheduled by Plaintiff. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MAUREEN MCGINLEY,
Plaintiff,
V.
DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA,
and DOUGLAS COUNTY
ASSESSOR’S OFFICE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8:14CV121
ORDER
On Monday, October 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that she be deposed
within the next couple days in order to preserve her testimony. (Filing 19.) Plaintiff, who
suffers from Stage IV Lymphoma, asserted that the deposition was necessary because she is
unlikely to survive through the end of this week. That day, the Court issued an order denying
Plaintiff’s motion, finding that Defendants are entitled to discovery before Plaintiff’s
deposition goes forward. (Filing 20.)
The following day, on October 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion, requesting that the
Court reconsider its previous ruling. (Filing 21.) At that time, Plaintiff also noticed
Plaintiff’s deposition for Friday, October 31, 2014. (Filing 23.) In her Motion to
Reconsider, Plaintiff stated that she would serve responses to Defendants’ pending discovery
requests later that day. On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of service, indicating
that discovery responses had been served on Defendants. (Filing 22.)
Having carefully considered the matter, the Court declines to overturn its October 27,
2014 ruling. The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s circumstances. However, allowing the
deposition to go forward as noticed would prejudice Defendants, as they just received
discovery responses and the responses appear to be at least partially incomplete.
Additionally, Defendants have now filed a motion to compel supplemental responses to the
discovery requests. (Filing 25.) Moreover, the parties have been aware of Plaintiff’s health
issues for quite some time, yet discovery was not pursued until October 15, 2014. To date,
Plaintiff has not served any discovery requests.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (filing 21) is denied. However, the
parties are directed to confer in an effort to resolve all pending discovery disputes, including
scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition in a timely manner. Plaintiff’s deposition shall not go
forward as presently scheduled by Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED October 30, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?