United States of America v. Limanni et al

Filing 23

ORDER granting 20 Motion for Enlargement of Time to Service Document Requests. Discovery extended to 8/31/13. Trial and related deadlines will be rescheduled. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.(dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America
v.

Civil No. 12-cv-114-JD

Charles Limanni, et al.
O R D E R
The United States brought suit against Charles Limanni,
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7403, to enforce federal tax
liens on his property in Barrington, New Hampshire.

The Town of

Barrington, Linda Limanni, and Artella E. Chase are also named in
the suit as potentially interested parties.

Charles Limanni is

proceeding pro se and filed a “motion for discovery.”

The

government objects to the motion.

Discussion
Charles Limanni filed a “motion for discovery,” requesting
that the court order the government to produce any documents in
its possession relating to the case and to furnish him with all
information that it intends to introduce at trial.

The

government objects, arguing that the discovery period as set
forth in the parties’ case management plan and extended by the
court has passed, and that Limanni did not seek any discovery
during that period.

The government further argues that if it is

forced to respond to Limanni’s document requests then the
response date would be close to the deadline for the submission
of final pretrial statements, which would place an undue burden
on the government.
“[D]iscovery [requests] must be served upon a party so that
the receiving party has enough time to respond, as provided for
in the Federal Rules, otherwise, the discovery requests are
untimely.”

Drahuse v. Fed. Home Loan. Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL

4088170, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2011).

In other words,

“when a scheduling order establishes a deadline for ‘completion
of discovery,’ it requires more than simply filing discovery
requests prior to the deadline.

Rather, it requires that parties

seeking discovery file their requests sufficiently in advance of
the deadline, such that the responses are due by the deadline for
completion of discovery.”

Bailey v. Komatsu Forklift U.S.A.,

Inc., 2008 WL 2674886, at *3 (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2008); see also
Gargano v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 494 Fed. Appx. 98, 101 (1st Cir.
2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment where interrogatories
and deposition notices “called for action after the discovery
deadline”).
The case management plan agreed to by the parties and
approved by the court provided a discovery deadline of April 30,
2013.

The court subsequently granted the government’s motion to
2

extend the discovery deadline until July 2, 2013.

Limanni did

not serve the government with document requests and instead filed
the motion which is the subject of this order on July 2, 2013.
If Limanni’s motion were considered a request for production
of documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, it would
be untimely because the government’s response would not be due
until thirty days from the date the motion was served, which is
after the discovery deadline.1

The government notes, however,

that “the motion could be viewed as a request for an enlargement
of time to serve document requests seeking the materials
identified in the motion.”

The government does not appear to

object to that request, but asks that if the court grants such
relief, the September 6, 2013, final pretrial conference should
be rescheduled.

The government suggests an extension of the

discovery deadline until August 31, 2013.
In light of Limanni’s pro se status and the government’s
position, Limanni’s motion is construed as a request for an
enlargement of time to serve document requests seeking the

1

As the government notes, Limanni’s motion cannot be
considered a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 because “[a] plaintiff need to first serve his
discovery demands before he can move to compel their answer.”
Fox v. Poole, 2007 WL 837117, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2007); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
3

materials identified in the motion.

The discovery deadline is

extended as proposed by the government.

The final pretrial

conference scheduled for September 6, 2013, the related
deadlines, and the trial will be rescheduled.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Limanni’s motion for an
enlargement of time to serve document requests (document no. 20)
is granted.

The discovery deadline is extended until August 31,

The final pretrial conference scheduled for September 6,

2013.

2013, the related deadlines, and the trial will be rescheduled.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 30, 2013
cc:

Thomas P. Cole, Esquire
Charles Limanni, pro se
Linda Limanni, pro se
Steven M. Whitley, Esquire

4