Opinion
Case Nos. 2:04-cv-013, 2:04-cv-158.
June 9, 2006
ORDER
On February 9, 2006, Defendants Ginny Lamneck and John Fausnaugh filed a motion for summary judgment (Document 82 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013; Document 24 in Case No. 2:04-cv-158). On February 14, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Telephone Conference Order relating to discovery disputes in this matter and asked that Defendants' counsel determine if it would be possible to produce certain unit log books as they are kept in the ordinary course of business for Plaintiff to review and, if Plaintiff found relevant entries, to provide Plaintiff with copies of that portion of the log book (Document 87 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013). The Magistrate Judge noted that if the parties were not able to resolve their dispute, they could file appropriate motions.
On February 22, 2006, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion by March 3, 2006 (Document 89 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013; Document 29 in Case No. 2:04-cv-158). On March 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend his time to respond to Defendants' summary judgment motion or amend the original response contained in that motion, and also moved to compel the production of discovery, stating that he still had not "received any log books or other production of documents to date," and alleged that counsel for the defendants had acted in bad faith in failing to produce the disputed documents (Document 90 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013; Documents 30 and 31 in Case No. 2:04-cv-158). On March 17, 2006, Defendants responded disputing that they were withholding any documents from Plaintiff and maintaining that as of March 10, 2006, they had produced all of the existing documents Plaintiff requested (Document 91 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013; Document 32 in Case No. 2:04-cv-158). Specifically, Defendants noted that they sent all documents except for the unit log books to Plaintiff on January 24, 2006, and subsequently mailed copies of the log books requested on March 10, 2006.
On April 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, directing Plaintiff to reply by May 5, 2006 (Document 94 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013). The Magistrate Judge further noted that Defendants "reported to the Court that all the requested logs were copied and sent to plaintiff on March 10, 2006." On April 14, 2006, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's motions, contending that they did not object to Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to their motion for summary judgment, that they were unsure what documents Plaintiff was referencing in its motion to compel because they had provided all of the documents that Plaintiff requested which were still in existence, and denying any bad faith in response to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Document 95 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013). Defendants also requested supplemental briefing and oral argument on the issue of sanctions, should this Court consider that issue.
On May 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed a document styled "Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Requests to Court — Granting Opportunity to Brief Issue Have Oral Argument; Motion for 14 Day Extension to Notarize Affidavits [to file with his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment]; Extraordinary Motion to Amend Original Complaint Based on {Civil Rule 56B 60B New Evidence Rule} — 30 Day Extension; and Plaintiff's Motion Contra Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendants DRC's and OCSEA's Motions for Summary Judgment" (Documents 97 and 98 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013). In this document, Plaintiff alleges that he still does not have the documents, materials, and tangible items he requested from Defendants, including certain video camera footage.
Accordingly, the matters pending before this court on Defendants Ginny Lamneck's and John Fausnaugh's motions for summary judgment are hereby stayed pending the Magistrate Judge's resolution of outstanding discovery issues including Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions with respect to Defendants Lamneck and Fausnaugh. The Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff appears to be moving to compel the production of documents from and for sanctions against the OCSEA AFSCME Local 11 Defendants, Plaintiff's claims against those Defendants have been dismissed (Document 92 in Case No. 2:04-cv-013; Document 37 in Case No. 2:04-cv-660). As such, these motions are moot.
It is so ORDERED.