Murdock v. McClelland et al

Filing 49

ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time of Scheduling Order Deadlines. ( Discovery due by 11/27/2019., Motions due by 12/27/2019.); denying 48 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/6/19. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00274-FDW
AJANAKU MURDOCK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACK McCLELLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Gregory Haynes, M.D.’s Motion for
Extension of Time to Case Management Plan [Doc. 47] and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Discovery
as to Defendant Gregory Haynes, M.D. [Doc. 48].
Defendant Gregory Haynes, M.D. (“Defendant Haynes”) moves for an extension of the
deadlines set forth in the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (PTOCMP) [Doc. 45]. For
good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendant Haynes’ motion and will extend the deadlines
in the PTOCMP as set forth below.
Defendant Haynes also moves to strike certain discovery requests Plaintiff has served on
Defendant Haynes. Specifically, Defendant Haynes requests that the Court strike a discovery
request he received from the Plaintiff on August 26, 2019. Defendant Haynes claims Plaintiff has
exceeded the limits set forth in Rule 33 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 48 at 1-2].
Defendant Haynes also asks the Court to strike a set of requests for admissions that Plaintiff served
on Defendant Haynes, but which purport to be directed to Defendant Sami Hassan [Doc. 48 at 2].
Defendant Haynes indicates in his motion that these discovery requests are attached as Exhibit 1.
They are not.

The Court will deny Defendant Haynes’ motion to strike. Regardless of whether these
requests were provided for the Court’s review, a motion to strike is not the proper means to address
potentially improper discovery requests. Defendant Haynes is referred to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for guidance on this issue. The Court also notes for the parties’ benefit that the
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan also addresses discovery limits in this case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) The Defendant’s Motion [Doc. 47] is GRANTED and the deadlines set forth in the
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan [Doc. 36] in this case shall be extended by
sixty (60) days.
(2) The Defendant’s Motion [Doc. 48] is DENIED.
Signed: September 6, 2019

2