Kitchen et al v. Barton et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 65 Motion to Reopen Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 7/12/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:14cv122
MICHAEL A. KITCHEN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SHAWN MILLER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reopen Discovery [# 65].
Defendants move the Court to reopen discovery in this case. The Court DENIES
the motion [# 65].
I.

Analysis

Discovery in this case closed June 1, 2016. Summary Judgment motions
were due July 1, 2016. On June 28, 2016, well after the close of discovery,
Defendants moved to reopen discovery for a period of at least sixty days.
Defendants contend that this extension was necessary as the result of Plaintiff
Michael Kitchen’s decision to live off the grid in the woods without contact with
his family or attorney.
Previously, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the pretrial
deadlines in this case. (Order, Jan. 20, 2016, ECF No. 50.) As the Court

previously stated:
While the Court is cognizant of the difficult situation that Mr. Kitchen’s
decision to go live in the woods without informing people of where he
might be living poses on counsel, the Court cannot allow the actions of
Mr. Kitchen to delay the resolution of a civil action that he brought
against Defendants. If Mr. Kitchen is not serious about prosecuting his
claims and would rather disappear into the woods than participate in
discovery, then he may certainly decide to do so. This Court, however,
will not allow such actions to delay the resolution of this civil
proceedings.

(Id.) Rather than move to compel Plaintiff Michael Kitchen to respond to
discovery or compel his deposition during the discovery period, however,
Defendants decided to wait and do nothing until nearly four weeks after the close
of discovery. Defendants have simply waited too long to seek assistance from the
Court in managing the discovery process in this case. Defendants could, and
should, have filed their motions during the discovery period instead of waiting
nearly a month after the close of discovery to compel discovery and to reopen
discovery. Upon a review of the record in this case and the relevant legal
authority, the Court DENIES the motion.
II.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES the Motion to Reopen Discovery [# 65].

Signed: July 12, 2016