Riley v. Alford et al

Filing 40

REPORT OF HEARING AND ORDER: If necessary, motion to compel due 11/17/11; response 11/23/11; no reply permitted. As to other unresolved discovery issues: email to be sent no later than 11/17/11 as outlined. Court reserves ruling on 36 Motion to Extend Time ; denies without prejudice 39 Motion to Continue Trial. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DANIEL JOHN RILEY,
Plaintiff
v.
JAMES ALLANDYDY, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 10-218-GZS

REPORT OF HEARING AND ORDER
RE: MOTIONS

Held in Portland, Maine, by telephone on November 2, 2011, at 3:00 p.m.
Presiding:

John H. Rich III, United States Magistrate Judge

Appearances:

For the Plaintiff: Sven Wiberg, Esq.
For the Defendants: Seth Aframe, Esq.

The telephone conference was held at my request to discuss the plaintiff’s assented-to
motions, see Docket Nos. 36, 39, to extend all remaining scheduling order deadlines, the parties’
trial-ready date, and the plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the defendants’ pending motion for
summary judgment, by 60 days to allow the parties to meet and confer regarding the resolution of
potential discovery disputes.
The disputes in question arose after the defendants provided to the plaintiff, on October 7,
2011, their initial responses to the plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of
1

documents. At the outset of the teleconference, counsel reported that the disputes concern not only
garden-variety issues but also an overarching legal issue about whether the defendants in this Bivens
action are obligated to produce documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of the
United States.
I informed counsel that, with a view to moving the case along expeditiously, I was inclined
not to grant a blanket 60-day extension of time but, rather, to set a deadline by which the parties must
confer in good faith to resolve their discovery disputes, failing which I will resolve any remaining
disputes as promptly as possible. I noted that, once those disputes are resolved, I would be in a
position to rule on reasonable extensions of remaining deadlines, ideally in such a manner as to
preserve the parties’ existing expected trial date of April 2012.
After further discussion, and without objection, I ORDERED that:
1.

The parties confer no later than the close of business on Wednesday, November 16,

2011, in a good-faith attempt to resolve their discovery disputes.
2.

To the extent that the parties are unable to resolve the legal issue of whether the

defendants must produce documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of the United
States, (i) the plaintiff file, no later than Thursday, November 17, 2011, a motion to compel said
production, limited to 10 pages, with (ii) the defendants filing any response no later than Wednesday,
November 23, 2011, also limited to 10 pages, and (iii) no reply permitted.
3.

To the extent that the parties are unable to resolve other discovery issues, they shall

send by email to the Portland New Cases Inbox, no later than Thursday, November 17, 2011, a nonargumentative letter or letters briefly outlining those remaining discovery disputes, together with

2

copies of the relevant discovery requests and responses, whereupon I will schedule a discovery
teleconference to resolve said issues.
I RESERVED RULING on Docket No. 36, the plaintiff’s assented-to motion to extend
deadlines, pending the resolution of the aforesaid discovery disputes, and DENIED, without
prejudice to its renewal, Docket No. 39, the plaintiff’s assented-to motion to continue trial. The
parties are PROTECTED as to all of the deadlines that are the subject of Docket No. 36, including
deadlines that have now expired, pending the resetting of said deadlines following the resolution of
the parties’ discovery disputes.
SO ORDERED.

CERTIFICATE AND NOTICE
A.

This report fairly reflects the actions taken at the hearing and shall be filed
forthwith.

B.

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a party may serve and file an
objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a
copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to review by the district court and to any further appeal of this order.

Dated this 3d day of November, 2011.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge

3