Parham v. Parsons et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 40 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 1/10/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(blf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11cv264-RJC
ROBERT PARHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FNU PARSONS, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc.
No. 40). Plaintiff does not state in the motion what discovery he is seeking from Defendants.
Plaintiff appears to be indicating that he wishes to renew the arguments made in a prior motion
to compel discovery that he filed on September 17, 2012, which motion this Court denied at that
time because discovery had not yet commenced. On May 6, 2013, this Court entering a Pretrial
Order and Case Management Plan, stating that discovery was due by August 30, 2013, and that
dispositive motions were due on September 30, 2013. (Doc. No. 34).
Following a motion for extension of time by Defendants, this Court entered an additional
Order regarding scheduling order deadlines on July 26, 2013, stating that discovery was due by
October 30, 2013. (Doc. No. 37). Furthermore, by separate order of this Court, dispositive
motions are due on January 27, 2014. See (Doc. No. 39). Because the time for discovery has
now passed, and because Plaintiff had ample time in which to file the instant motion to compel
while the discovery period was still open, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery as untimely.
1

IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 40) is DENIED.

Signed: January 10, 2014

-2-