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)

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