Howard v. Connett et al

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 31 Plaintiff Reginald Howard's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 12/12/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

REGINALD C. HOWARD,
#13891

9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
BRIAN CONNETT, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:11-cv-01402-KJD-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Compel (#31)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Reginald Howard’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

15

Order Compelling Discovery (#31), filed on October 25, 2012. Defendants filed a Motion for

16

Extension of Time to Respond (#35) on November 13, 2012, which the Court granted on

17

November 15, 2012 (#37). Defendants filed a timely Opposition (#38) on November 27, 2012.

18

Plaintiff filed a timely Reply (#41) on December 5, 2012.

19

Under Local Rule 26-7(b), discovery motions “will not be considered unless a statement of

20

the movant is attached thereto” certifying that the parties have been unable to resolve the matter

21

without court action. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Under Local Rule 26-7(a), all motions to

22

compel discovery “shall set forth in full the text of the discovery originally sought and the response

23

thereto, if any.” The Court finds, based on the moving papers, that Plaintiff neither attempted to

24

meet and confer with Defendants before filing the instant Motion nor set forth the discovery sought.

25

Furthermore, in its August 3, 2012 Scheduling Order (#21), the Court set the deadline for discovery

26

motions for October 22, 2012. The Court advised the parties that any motion filed beyond the time

27

limit shall be stricken, unless the Court grants an exception for good cause shown. See Doc. #21 at

28

2:4-5. Because Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on October 25, 2012, it is untimely. Defendants

1

represent that any outstanding interrogatory responses are forthcoming. Therefore, the Court finds

2

Plaintiff does not establish good cause for an exception from the discovery motion deadline set

3

forth in the Scheduling Order (#21). Accordingly,

4
5
6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Reginald Howard’s Motion for Order
Compelling Discovery (#31) be denied.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2012.

7
8
9

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2