Pace v. Mays
ORDER denying 29 Motion to Compel; denying 30 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/27/2014.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles F. Pace,
C/A No.: 1:13-1394-RMG-SVH
This matter comes before the court on the motion of Plaintiff to compel discovery
responses from Defendant. [Entry #29]. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to
Requests for Production Nos. 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 30 (“RFPs”). Id. As an initial
matter, it appears that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely. Under the court’s Third and
Final Scheduling Order, discovery ended in this case on July 31, 2014. [Entry #21].
Pursuant to Local Civ. Rule 37.01 (D.S.C.):
Motions to compel discovery must be filed within twenty-one (21) days
after receipt of the discovery response to which the motion to compel is
directed or, where no response has been received, within twenty-one (21)
days after the response was due. If counsel are actively engaged in attempts
to resolve the discovery dispute, they may agree to extend the time to comply
with the discovery request so long as the extension does not place the due
date beyond thirty (30) days before the deadline for completion of discovery
as set by the scheduling order.
Here, even if Defendant provided the allegedly insufficient discovery responses on July 31,
2014, the last day of discovery, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is untimely as it was filed on
August 26, 2014, more than 21 days after receipt of the discovery. As the rule notes, the
parties are not authorized to consensually extend the deadline for complying with
discovery, which in turn triggers the deadline for filing a motion to compel, beyond 30 days
prior to the completion of discovery. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied
Even if the motion had been timely, the undersigned denies the motion to compel on
its merits, because the RFPs are not relevant to a claim or defense in this case under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1) or otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. All of the RFPs seek information about Defendant’s use of force, or discipline
for use of force, in incidents other than the incident at issue in the complaint. Plaintiff
argues that such information is necessary to show that Defendant regularly used more force
than was necessary and greater force than used by other correctional officers. However,
even if true, such information does not show that Defendant used excessive force against
Plaintiff in the incident described in the complaint. Therefore, because the RFPs request
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, and to which Plaintiff is not otherwise entitled, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s
motion to compel.
Plaintiff’s motion to stay the response for summary judgment [Entry #30] is denied
as moot. Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Entry #27]
remains September 8, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 27, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?