Quiney v. LVMPD Officer Kuam et al

Filing 38

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 25 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motions to Move Case Forward 33 35 37 are DENIED and STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/23/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

DWAYNE QUINEY,

)
)
Case No. 2:11-cv-00150-GMN-PAL
Plaintiff,
)
)
ORDER
vs.
)
)
(Mtn to Compel - Dkt. #25)
LVMPD OFFICER KVAM, et al.,
) (Mtn to Move Case Forward - Dkt. ##33, 35, 37)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

12
13

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Dwayne Quiney’s Motion to Compel Answers to

14

Interrogatories (Dkt. #25), Defendants Anthony Kvam’s and Deana Lopez’s Opposition (Dkt. #30),

15

Plaintiff’s Motion to Move Case Forward (Dkt. #33), Defendants’ Opposition (Dkt. #34), Plaintiff’s

16

Motion to Move Case Forward (Dkt. #35), and Defendants’ Opposition (Dkt. #36). The court has

17

considered the Motions and Oppositions.

18

Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis. The court screened Plaintiff’s

19

Complaint (Dkt. #3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, dismissing Plaintiff’s official capacity claims and

20

allowing Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. #7),

21

which the court also screened, recommending dismissal of the official capacity claims and directing

22

service with respect to Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a Fourth Amendment violation. See

23

Order and Report of Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. #10). The District Judge affirmed and

24

adopted the undersigned’s recommendation and dismissed the official capacity claims. After

25

Defendants answered the Amended Complaint, the court entered a Discovery Plan and Scheduling

26

Order (Dkt. #18). Discovery closed on October 12, 2011, and there is currently a Motion for Summary

27

Judgment (Dkt. #26) pending before the District Judge, which is now fully briefed.

28

///

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Dkt. #25), filed on November 23,

2

2011, requests an order compelling Defendant Kvam to respond to sixty-six interrogatories, enumerated

3

in Plaintiff’s motion. Defendants respond that the court advised Plaintiff at a hearing on their motion to

4

compel that discovery in this matter had closed, and Plaintiff could not propound written discovery

5

without a court order. Defendants contend they were never served with requests for written discovery

6

before Plaintiff filed this motion. Additionally, Plaintiff made no attempt to meet and confer before

7

filing this motion as required by Local Rule 26-7.

8
9

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied. He asks the court to direct Officer Kvam to answer
interrogatories attached to his motion. Discovery closed on October 12, 2011. Plaintiff filed this

10

motion on November 23, 2011–nearly six weeks after discovery closed, more than a month after the

11

hearing held on October 23, 2011, and a week before the extended deadline to file dispositive motions.

12

With respect to the remaining motions–Plaintiff’s Motions to Move Case Forward (Dkt. ##33,

13

35, 37)–it appears that they are actually surreplies to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.

14

#26). In each, Plaintiff restates the reasons the court should deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary

15

Judgment and attempts to have the last word. Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure permit a party to file a surreply–that is, a second opposition filed after the movant has filed a

17

reply. The rules permit a motion, a response, and reply. Plaintiff’s Motions to Move Case Forward are

18

denied and stricken. Additionally, Plaintiff is advised that filing duplicative requests causes

19

unwarranted expenditure of time, effort, and resources of both opposing counsel and the court and

20

unnecessarily multiplies these proceedings. Filing duplicative requests may result in sanctions.

21

For all the foregoing reasons,

22

IT IS ORDERED:

23

1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #25) is DENIED.

24

2,

Plaintiff’s Motions to Move Case Forward (Dkt. ##33, 35, 37) are DENIED and

25
26

STRICKEN.
Dated this 23rd day of February, 2012.

27
28

_______________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2