MILLER v. KEYSTONE BLIND ASSOCIATION/TPM

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 38 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 06/04/2012. (cms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DUANE MILLER

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KEYSTONE BLIND ASSOCIATION/TPM, )
)
Defendant.
)

Civil Action No. 11-887

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On
filed

a

May

2012,

Plaintiff

to

Motion

11,

Compel

Answers

Duane
to

Miller

(“Miller”)

Interrogatories

and

Production of Documents alleging that Defendant Keystone Blind
Association (“Keystone”) had failed to respond to his discovery
requests

(Doc.

#

33).

On

May

29,

2012,

Keystone

filed

a

response to Miller’s motion, representing that it complied with
Miller’s discovery requests on May 25, 2012 (Doc. # 36).1
In conjunction with its response to Miller’s Motion to
Compel, Keystone filed a Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline
which was set to expire on May 31, 2012 (Doc. #35).

In this

document, Keystone explained that the delay in the discovery
process was reasoned by organizational concerns regarding the
documents Muller requested.
1

Keystone also informed that Miller

Keystone did not offer an explanation for
its
delay
in
responding
to
the
interrogatories and production of documents
request.

had

advised

that

he

wanted

to

review

Keystone’s

discovery

responses before he deposed certain Keystone representatives.
Two of those depositions were scheduled for May 30, 2012.
that

discovery

Keystone

was

requested

scheduled
a

to

one-month

close
extension

the
of

Given

following
the

day,

discovery

deadline and a concomitant extension for filing its motion for
the summary judgment.
On May 30, 2012, the court granted Keystone’s motion
to extend the discovery deadline and dismissed Miller’s motion
to compel as moot (Doc. # 37).

The next day, Miller filed a

Motion for Sanctions complaining that discovery should not have
been

extended

because

Keystone

discovery process (Doc. # 38).

has

unreasonably

delayed

the

As the court reads Miller’s

motion, he is requesting that Keystone either be disciplined for
its dilatoriness or that judgment be entered in Miller’s favor.
It is first observed that a motion for sanctions is
not appropriate because Miller has not averred that Keystone
engaged in conduct warranting sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b).
In the alternative, if the court construes Miller’s
current motion as a request for reconsideration of its order
granting Keystone’s motion to extend discovery, the motion is
denied.

If the original May 31, 2012, discovery deadline was

imposed,

the

parties

would

have

only

one

day

following

the

scheduled depositions to complete discovery.

Given these time

constraints, it was reasonable, and in both parties’ interests,
to

extend

the

discovery

and

summary

judgment

deadlines

thirty days.
s/Robert C. Mitchell
Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge

for