Kotsias v. CMC II, LLC et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 24 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests. Defendant shall have until July 30, 2016, to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 6/27/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15cv242
RITA KOTSIAS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CMC II, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Discovery Requests [# 24]. Defendant ESIS (“Defendant”) moves to extend the
time to respond to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production
of Documents. Plaintiff does not consent to the extensions of time.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure envision the parties managing the
discovery process, including the granting of extensions of time to respond to
discovery requests, without the Court’s intervention. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure provides that the parties may stipulate to a shorter or longer
period of time to respond to interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Similarly,
Rule 34 provides that the parties may stipulate to a different time period for
responding to a request for the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(A). Finally, Rule 36 provides that the parties may agree to more than

thirty days to respond to a written request to admit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Such
stipulations, however, must comply with Rule 29, which provides that the parties
may stipulate to the modification of procedures governing or limiting discovery,
provided that a stipulation extending the time to respond does not interfere with the
deadlines for completing discovery, holding a hearing on a motion, or the trial.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(b).
Here, however, Plaintiff does not consent to the requested extension of time
for Defendant to respond to the discovery requests. Upon a review of the record
and the relevant legal authority, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated
good cause for extending the time for it to respond to discovery. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS the motion [# 24]. Defendant shall have until July 30, 2016, to
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Signed: June 27, 2016