Johnson v. Mission Support

Filing 169

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 161 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 1/28/13 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JEFF JOHNSON,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 161)

Plaintiff,
v.
MISSION SUPPORT, et al.,

Case No. 2:08-CV-00877-DN-EJF
Defendants.
District Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

Jeff Johnson made two motions to extend discovery.1 (Docket Nos. 101 & 161.) The
Court has carefully read the Motion and Memoranda submitted for and against Johnson’s Motion
to Extend Discovery and heard oral argument on December 4, 2012. The Court also carefully
read the Motion and Memoranda submitted for and against Johnson’s Third Motion to Extend
Discovery. This Court now grants in part and denies in part the second Motion.
On January 16 and 28, 2013, this Court granted in part two Motions to Compel. The
Court will allow discovery to reopen and remain open through March 15, 2013 to permit any
follow up discovery the parties deem necessary.
Mr. Johnson has requested a longer extension to permit him to conduct further discovery
of third parties and follow up on the discovery produced in response to his Motions to Compel.
The fact discovery period in this case began on April 26, 2010 and closed March 15, 2012,
1

On October 5, 2010, District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Magistrate Judge David
Nuffer under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket No. 28.) On March 31, 2012, the case
was reassigned from Judge Benson to newly appointed District Judge David Nuffer. (Docket
No. 126.) On May 21, 2012, Judge Nuffer reassigned the referral to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J.
Furse. (Docket No. 143.)
1

following two extensions. The Court also permitted Mr. Johnson to take depositions of four
third party witnesses on August 23, 2012 even though discovery had closed. (Docket No. 155.)
Mr. Johnson has had plenty of time to complete discovery during which he made decisions about
the methods of discovery to pursue and the order in which to pursue them. This additional
period will permit sufficient time to complete any discovery necessitated by the Motions to
Compel without significantly prejudicing Mission Support Inc.
Mr. Johnson made an additional motion to compel the United States Air Force “to
cooperate” within this motion to extend discovery. (Docket No. 161.) Mr. Johnson elected to
pursue informal discovery to obtain information from the United States Air Force. He solicited
information through letters, e-mails, and non-subpoenaed depositions all from Tinker Air Force
Base in Oklahoma. When a party chooses to engage in informal discovery, it relies on the
willingness of those from whom it seeks information to provide that information. If that party
wishes to use the Court to demand responses to discovery, it must use formal discovery
processes, in this case subpoenas. See, Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Multiservice Corp., Case No. 06-2256CM, 2008 WL 73345, at *8 (D. Kan. Jan. 7, 2008). Furthermore, Mr. Johnson has failed to meet
and confer prior to bringing this “motion.” For these reasons the Court denies Mr. Johnson’s
Motion to Compel submitted as part of his Motion to Extend.
This Court will issue a new scheduling order separately.

2

For the reasons sets forth above, the Court GRANTS this Motion in Part and DENIES
this Motion in Part.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
Evelyn J. Furse
United States Magistrate Judge

3