Brown v. Kroll et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 24 ) is denied. 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
MEE MEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV294

vs.
JOHN KROLL, Facility Operating
Officer at Norfolk Regional Center, In
Their Individual Capacities; BEVERLY
LEUSHEN, Licensed Administrative
Program Therapist, In Their Individual
Capacities; KATHY HERRON,
Licensed 3-East Unit Supervisor, In
Their Individual Capacities; TABITHA
WAGGONER, Provisionally Licensed
Group Facilitator and Social Worker, In
Their Individual Capacities; and
RHONDA WILSON, Registered Nurse,
In Their Individual Capacities;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of
Time. (Filing No. 24). Plaintiff represents to the court that she spoke to counsel
for Defendants, Ryan Gilbride, and they agreed to a 30-day extension until
February 17, 2018, for Plaintiff to serve interrogatories on Defendants.1 Plaintiff
asks the court to enter an order granting that extension.
The court previously extended Plaintiff’s time to respond to Defendant’s
summary judgment motion to January 18, 2018, and entered a progression order
requiring interrogatories to be served by that same date. (Filing No. 15; Filing No.
1

The court notes Plaintiff’s motion is not in the proper form to constitute a binding
agreement, stipulation, or consent between parties. See NECivR. 7.3.

16.) Plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion in response to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment on January 22, 2018. (See Filing No. 22; Filing No. 23.)
Three days later, on January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Enlargement
of Time. (Filing No. 24.) Thereafter on January 29, 2018, Defendants filed their
brief in reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Filing No. 25.)
The court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time should be
denied. Plaintiff has made no showing how the declarations and interrogatories
she wishes to submit to Defendants are relevant to her claims. See Hofer v. Mack
Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992) (“Some threshold showing of
relevance must be made before parties are required to open wide the doors of
discovery and to produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear
upon the issues in the case.”). Nor has Plaintiff shown that the declarations and
interrogatories she seeks to serve are relevant or “essential” to resisting
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment raises qualified immunity and is now
fully briefed and ripe for resolution. Given Plaintiff’s failure to provide any sort of
justification for the need for this discovery, either in her motion or in her response
to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the court will not grant her request.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing
No. 24) is denied.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2