Valentine v. Brown et al

Filing 94

ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 88 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 89 in Case No. 8:16CV174) is denied. Member Cases: 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-MDN, 8:16-cv-00174-LSC-MDN, 8:17-cv-00236-LSC-MDN. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV131
ORDER

vs.
LISA VILLWOK, #1764, and JENNIFER
HANSEN, #1585,

8:16CV174
ORDER

Defendants.

VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
8:17CV236
vs.

ORDER

MICHAEL KOZELICHKI, Lieutenant of
Omaha Police, City of Omaha,
Defendant.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 88
in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 89 in Case No. 8:16CV174), filed on July 3, 2017. No
defendant responded to the motion by the deadline of July 17, 2017, and thus the Court will
consider the motion ripe for disposition.1
Plaintiff moves the court to:
[C]ompel the Defendant to comply with Plaintiff[’]s discovery request to
give her all the information[,] documentation and any all each and every
record, paper, documents, whatever concerning any search of any females
red yellow black white etc. We show that we served the Defendants with a
discovery request over six months ago.

1 See NECivR 6.1 and 7.1(b) (Effective December 1, 2016).

(Filing No. 88 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 89 in Case No. 8:16CV174). Plaintiff again
did not file a brief or any other evidence or documentation with the above motion, which is
quoted in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s most recent discovery motion suffers from the same defects identified in this
Court’s previous Order dated June 14, 2017, denying a similar motion. See Filing No. 81 in
Case No. 8:16CV131 (denying motion to compel for failure to comply with local or federal
rules). Plaintiff has not attempted to cure any of the previously cited deficiencies in her motion.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely under this Court’s January 20, 2017, Order
Setting Schedule for Progression of Case.

The deadline for parties to file motions to compel

discovery was May 11, 2017. (Filing No. 57 in Case No. 8:16cv131). Plaintiff did not request
an extension of time to file the instant motion. See Russell v. Am. Airlines, 2009 WL 2225814,
at *1 (D. Neb. July 23, 2009) (denying pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel filed one month after
deadline where plaintiff did not request additional time in which to serve discovery or file
motion to compel).
Plaintiff did not comply with local or federal rules for requesting discovery and filing
discovery motions, and her motion is untimely under this Court’s previous order. As such, the
Court finds her motion should be denied. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 88 in Case No.
8:16CV131; Filing No. 89 in Case No. 8:16CV174) is denied.
Dated this 20th day of July, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson
United States Magistrate Judge

ADMONITION
A party may object to a magistrate judge’s order by filing an objection within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy of the order. See NECivR 72.2(a). Failure to timely object may
constitute a waiver of any objection.
2