Corbett v. Perry et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 87 Motion for Protective Order; granting 89 Motion for Discovery; granting 92 Motion for Extension of Time of Scheduling Order Deadlines. ( Discovery due by 10/16/2020, Motions due by 11/18/2020.) Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 5/5/2020. (ams)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-103-MOC
STANLEY CORBETT, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
FRANK PERRY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Haynes’ Motion for Protective Order,
(Doc. No. 87), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories, (Doc. No. 89),
and Defendant Haynes’ Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order Deadlines, (Doc. No. 92).
Defendant Haynes filed a Motion for Protective Order, (Doc. No. 87), with regards to
Plaintiff’s First Request for Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request
for Admission served February 24, 2020. Defendant Haynes argues that the request includes eight
interrogatories to “all Defendants” some of which have unmarked subparts, 16 additional
interrogatories to Defendant Haynes, some of which have unmarked subparts, and additional
interrogatories to other defendants, 12 Requests for Production of Documents but they do not
indicate to which defendants they are directed, and 17 Requests for Admissions that do not indicate
which defendants they are directed at. Rule 33 limits Plaintiff to 25 written interrogatories and the
Case Management Plan further limits interrogatories to 20, including subparts. Defendant Haynes
requests a protective order under Rule 26(c), allowing him to withhold his responses to these
discovery requests until Plaintiff has served discovery on Haynes that complies with the Case
Management Plan. Plaintiff has filed a Response through discovery counsel NCPLS, (Doc. No.

1

88), opposing Defendant Haynes’ Motion.
Plaintiff argues that a protective order should be denied and has filed a Motion for Leave
to Serve Additional Interrogatories, (Doc. No. 89). Plaintiff argues that Defendant Haynes has not
specified any reasons why the four additional interrogatories should be considered unreasonable
or unnecessary or why responding to them would be unduly burdensome. Plaintiff requests
permission to serve additional interrogatories in this case pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure due to the complexity of the case including the number of defendants,
the differing roles of each of the remaining defendants, the number of surviving claims, the length
of time covered by Plaintiff’s claims, and the great number of events detailed in Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
The court has “wide latitude in controlling discovery and … [t]he latitude given the district
courts extends as well to the manner in which it orders the course and scope of discovery.” Ardrey
v. United Parcel Service, 798 F.3d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986). NCPLS has explained why the
discovery requests are reasonable and why additional interrogatories should be allowed in this case
and the Court agrees. Therefore, Defendant Haynes’ Motion for Protective Order will be denied
and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories will be granted.
Defendant Haynes has also filed a Motion seeking to extend the discovery deadline until
October 16, 2020, and the dispositive motions deadline until November 18, 2020, due to the
COVID-19 pandemic and the discovery posture of the case. Plaintiff and co-Defendants’ counsel
have consented. The Motion for an extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines
will be granted for good cause shown.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant Haynes’ Motion for Protective Order, (Doc. No. 87), is DENIED.

2

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories, (Doc. No. 89), is
GRANTED.

3.

Defendant Haynes’ Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order Deadlines, (Doc.
No. 92), is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is extended until October 16, 2020,
and the dispositive motions deadline is extended until November 18, 2020.

Signed: May 5, 2020

3