Patel v. Smith

Filing 111

ORDER Granting 108 Defendant's Motion to Strike and Denying 107 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Compel. The Clerk of Court is instructed to STRIKE 105 Plaintiff's Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 06/04/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

DEBRA JENE PATEL-JULSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PAUL SMITH LAS VEGAS, INC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01023-APG-CWH
ORDER

14
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Paul Smith Las Vegas’ Motion to Strike (#108),
15
filed May 21, 2014. It is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel (#107), filed
16
May 20, 2014.
17
1. Motion to Strike (#108)
18
Defendant requests an order striking Plaintiff’s reply filed in support of her motion to compel
19
(#76) claiming the reply is “untimely and blatantly improper.” Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
20
and is litigating the case pro se. Courts are to broadly construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants and
21
give such plaintiffs “the benefit of any doubt.” See, e.g., Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th
22
Cir.1985). Nevertheless, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
23
King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th
24
Cir.1986) (“pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties
25
with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.1986)
26
(pro se litigants expected to abide by the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds). The reply
27
(#105) was filed approximately thirty (30) days after it was due. It also appears to raise arguments not
28
specific to the motion to compel and does not add to the discussion regarding the motion to compel.

1

Consequently, the Court will strike it from the record. See Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F.Supp. 1109 (D.

2

Nev. 1988) (striking untimely motion brief filed that failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the

3

untimely filing).

4

2. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel (#107)

5

This motion is duplicative of Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel (#76) and, therefore, will be

6

denied. Whether responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests will be compelled will be addressed in the

7

order on pending motion (#76).

8

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Paul Smith Las Vegas’ Motion to Strike (#108) is

10

granted. The Clerk of Court is instructed to strike Plaintiff’s Reply (#105).

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel (#107) is denied.

12

DATED: June 4, 2014.

13
14
15

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2