Opinion
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a request for a seven-day extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. In light of the pendency of defendants' September 24, 2013 motion for summary judgment, plaintiff will be permitted additional time to file a cross-motion for summary judgment along with his opposition to defendants' motion.
Also pending before the court is plaintiff's August 5, 2013 motion to compel production of documents. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff sought further responses to his requests for production of documents (RFP) nos. 7 and 8 propounded upon defendant Forsterer, and further responses to RFP nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9 propounded upon defendant Walker. In opposition (ECF No. 64), defendants Forsterer and Walker indicate that they have supplemented their responses to these RFPs. Defendants contend that these supplemental responses have rendered plaintiff's motion to compel further discovery moot.
Defendants have provided their supplemental responses, which identify the documents that have now been provided to plaintiff. The court's review of the motion and of defendants' supplemental responses confirms that the supplemental responses and production resolve the discovery dispute. No further order of the court could enhance the supplemented responses. Moreover, plaintiff filed no reply contesting the adequacy of the supplemented discovery responses. The motion therefore will be denied as moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's September 23, 2013 motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 69) is enlarged and is granted;
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file any cross-motion for summary judgment and his opposition to defendants' September 24, 2014 motion for summary judgment.
3. Plaintiff's motion to compel further production of documents from defendants (ECF No. 62) is denied as moot.