Troupe v. Kapa et al
Filing
49
ORDER that defendants shall file a surreply to Plaintiff's response 47 on or before 6/19/2015. Plaintiff's second motion for an extension of the Court's pretrial deadlines 43 and third 44 MOTION to Compel Discovery are re-noted for 6/19/15. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. **3 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(CMG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
7
8
DAVID TROUPE,
9
No. C14-5529 RBL-KLS
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
13
ADAM KAPA, DANIEL WISTIE,
RICHARD HAYWARD, C/O SORSBY,
ANDREW WILLIAMS, EDWIN
HOSKINS,
14
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS
TO FILE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS (Dkts. 43 and 44)
Defendants.
12
15
16
Plaintiff David Troupe now files his second motion to extend discovery and third motion
to compel the production of discovery. Dkts. 43 and 44, respectively. The Court requires further
17
18
information before ruling on the motions.
DISCUSSION
19
20
On September 22, 2014, the Court set the deadlines for discovery on March 20, 2015 and
21
for the filing of dispositive motions on May 15, 2015. Dkt. 17. On January 5, 2015, the Court
22
struck Defendants’ motion for summary judgment pending completion of discovery. Dkt. 27.
23
On April 1, 2015, the Court granted Mr. Troupe’s request for a sixty day extension and reset the
24
deadlines for discovery to May 15, 2015 and the filing of dispositive motions to July 17, 2015.
25
26
Dkt. 38.
ORDER - 1
1
Mr. Troupe now requests an additional 180 day extension of the discovery deadline “due
2
to depression, ADD, PTSD, and BPD.” Dkt. 43. He claims that he suffers from multiple mental
3
health issues, cannot write for long periods of time, and has limited access to legal research and
4
his legal materials. Id. He also contends that an extension is warranted because he cannot pay
5
for discovery. Dkt. 43. The Court previously allowed Mr. Troupe an additional sixty days to
6
7
organize his litigation and conduct discovery. Within this time, however, the parties have failed
8
to resolve a dispute over the production of documents responsive to Mr. Troupe’s discovery
9
requests.
10
11
12
The Court is aware that Mr. Troupe has sought the production of documents and that
counsel for defendant has withheld the documents because Mr. Troupe is unable to pay for
copying costs. The Court previously denied two of Mr. Troupe’s motions based on his indigent
13
status. Dkts. 38 and 42. Defendants informed the Court that they have identified each set of
14
15
responsive records along with a brief description of what the records contain, have offered to
16
provide a disk with the discovery documents that could be mailed to a third party to review and
17
make copies, and have offered to print the responses double-sided to save fifty percent of the
18
cost. Dkt. 46, p. 4. In response, Mr. Troupe raises various objections to these proposed options
19
20
but notably states that he “has made $58.33 available to Ms. Beach to cover the copy and postage
costs, but so far she’s refused.” Dkt. 47, p. 4. Mr. Troupe also mentions litigation costs of
21
22
23
$50.00, but it is unclear whether this is the amount of copying and mailing the discovery to Mr.
Troupe. Id.
24
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
25
(1)
26
Defendants shall file a surreply to Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. 47) on or before June
19, 2015. Defendants shall include a description of the responsive records at issue, the amount
ORDER - 2
1
of pages, and a breakdown of the costs associated with production. Defendants shall also
2
respond to Plaintiff’s statement that counsel has refused $58.33 to cover copy and postage costs.
3
4
(2)
Plaintiff’s second motion for an extension of the Court’s pretrial deadlines (Dkt.
43) and third motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 44) are re-noted for June 19, 2015.
5
(3)
The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.
6
7
DATED this 8th day of June, 2015.
A
8
9
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3
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?