King v. Calderwood et al

Filing 77

ORDER Granting 48 Motion to Extend Time. The deadlines in the 42 Scheduling Order are extended 45 days: Discovery due by 7/6/2015. Motions due by 8/5/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/4/2015. The Motions to Strike 69 , 70 , and 71 are GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE 60 Motion, 61 Interrogatories, and 62 Request from the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 5/21/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 MATTHEW J. KING, 8 ORDER Plaintiff, v. 9 10 Case No. 2:13-cv-02080-GMN-PAL (Mtn to Extend Discovery – Dkt. #48) (Mtn for Discovery – Dkt. #60) (Interrogatories – Dkt. #61) (Requests for Admission – Dkt. #62) (Mtns to Strike – Dkt. ##69, 70, 71) AMY CALDERWOOD, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Matthew J. King’s Motion to Extend 14 Discovery (Dkt. #48) and Defendants’ Motions to Strike (Dkt. #69, 70, 71) Plaintiff’s Motions 15 for Discovery (Dkt. #60), Interrogatories (Dkt. #61), Requests for Admission (Dkt. #62). 16 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis. These 17 matters were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 18 and LR 1-3 and 1-9. The Court has considered the Motions and related briefing. 19 I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY (DKT. #48) 20 Plaintiff’s Motion requests an extension of the discovery deadline. A court may modify a 21 discovery plan and scheduling order before the expiration of the deadlines therein and before the 22 final pretrial order is entered upon a showing of “good cause.” Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 23 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). 24 diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Id. The good cause standard “primarily considers the 25 On February 4, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order (Dkt. #42) that set May 6, 26 2015, as the deadline for discovery to be completed. Plaintiff timely filed a request to extend the 27 discovery deadline to allow the parties to complete outstanding discovery. Defendants have filed 28 a Notice of Non-Opposition (Dkt. #51) indicating there is no objection to Plaintiff’s request. As 1 1 such, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines stated in the Scheduling Order by forty- 2 five (45) days: (a) Discovery in this action shall be completed on or before July 6, 2015; (b) 3 Motions for summary judgment shall be filed and served no later than August 5, 2015; and (c) 4 the Parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Order on or before September 4, 2015. 5 II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE (DKT. #69, 70, 71) 6 Defendants’ Motions to Strike ask the Court to strike Plaintiff’s discovery requests from 7 the record because they were improperly filed with the Court. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery 8 (Dkt. #60) appears to request the production of documents by Defendants. Similarly, Plaintiff 9 filed his Interrogatories (Dkt. #61) and Requests for Admission (Dkt. #62) on the Court’s docket. 10 “It is well established that district courts have inherent power to control their docket.” 11 Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404–05 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation 12 omitted). This includes the power to strike items from the record that are procedurally improper. 13 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991); Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 14 1109, 1111 (D. Nev. 1988) (“Applicable rules of procedure, including Local Rules, must be 15 enforced. . . .”). The Court’s Local Rule 26-8 states, “unless otherwise ordered by the Court, 16 written discovery, including responses thereto, and deposition transcripts, shall not be filed with 17 the Court.” (emphasis added). 18 Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the requirements 19 for obtaining discovery through interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and 20 requests for admission in discovery. Rule 5 permits written discovery requests to a party who 21 has already appeared to be served by simply mailing them to the other party, or its attorney, if the 22 other party is represented by counsel. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to serve written discovery 23 requests on Defendants, he need only mail such discovery requests directly to Defendants’ 24 counsel. Discovery requests should not be filed with the Court. See LR 26-8. Therefore, the 25 Court will grant Defendants’ Motions to Strike. 26 IT IS ORDERED: 27 1. 28 Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery (Dkt. #48) is GRANTED. The deadlines stated in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. #42) are extended by forty-five (45) days: (a) 2 1 Discovery in this action shall be completed on or before July 6, 2015; (b) Motions 2 for summary judgment shall be filed and served no later than August 5, 2015; and 3 (c) the Parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Order on or before September 4, 2015. If 4 dispositive motions are pending the deadline for filing the joint pretrial order is 5 suspended until 30 days after a decision of the dispositive motion oruntil further 6 order of the court. 7 2. Defendants’ Motions to Strike (Dkt. ##69, 70, 71) are GRANTED. The Clerk of 8 the Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Dkt. #60), 9 Interrogatories (Dkt. #61) and Requests for Admission (Dkt. #62) from the record. 10 Dated this 21st day of May, 2015. 11 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?