Easter v. Espinosa et al

Filing 29

ORDER re: 28 Joint REQUEST for pre-motion conference ( Motion to Compel due by 10/6/2017., Responses due by 10/10/2017.)(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(dperez, 3)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION DYLAN LEE EASTER, Plaintiff, VS. ARTURO ESPINOSA, et al, Defendants. § § § § § § § § October 02, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-287 ORDER Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in state court on on September 13, 2015, and Defendants removed the suit to this Court on October 13, 2015. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff contended that his constitutional rights had been violated during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest in January 2014. On May 18, 2017, this Court dismissed most of the claims, leaving only Plaintiff’s claim against Officer Espinosa, in his individual capacity, for violating Section 1983 by unlawfully stopping and arresting Easter without probable cause. Dkt. 23. The Court then held a scheduling conference to set deadlines for the trial of that remaining claim. Dkt. 27. The discovery cut-off in this case was September 30, 2017, and dispositive motions are due on October 20, 2017. Docket call is set for January 8, 2018. Defendants have now filed a letter requesting a pre-motion conference to address discovery problems. Dkt. 28. Specifically, Defendants’ counsel allege that they are having a significant degree of difficulty in securing discovery from Plaintiff, and that he failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition. In keeping with this Court’s 1/2 Procedures, Defendants have sought a pre-motion conference to discuss filing a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and seeking an order from this Court that will compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition, respond to written discovery requests, and to comply with his discovery obligations. After considering the Defendants’ request, the Court finds that a pre-motion conference is not warranted at this time and Dkt. 28 is denied without prejudice. Instead, Defendants may file the proposed motion to compel under Rule 37 and applicable case law. See, e.g., Oprex Surgery (Baytown), L.P. v. Sonic Auto. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, 16-20734, 2017 WL 3442373 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2017). Such motion shall be filed on or before Friday, October 6, 2017. Plaintiff’s response to that motion is due on or before Tuesday, October 10, 2017. All counsel should be prepared for a hearing, to be held on short notice, after the motion is filed. Plaintiff is cautioned that a failure to file a response to the Defendants’ motion, or to appear at a hearing or conference with the Court, may be viewed as a failure to prosecute or a statement that the relief sought is not opposed. SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 2nd day of October, 2017. ___________________________________ George C. Hanks Jr. United States District Judge 2/2

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?