Opinion
Case No. 3:13-CV-00613-YY
07-17-2018
GREGORY BENTON, Plaintiff, v. LEGACY HEALTH, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER :
Plaintiff, Gregory Benton ("Benton"), proceeding pro se, filed this case over five years ago. Now pending before this court is Benton's Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF #173), in which he seeks to depose two unnamed witnesses, and obtain incident report records from the Oregon Health Authority on three dates during the summers of 2011 and 2012, a video of a surgery performed on him at Providence Hospital in July 2012, certain trial transcript(s), and a series of records from defendant, Legacy Health ("Legacy"). For the reasons that follow, Benton's Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF #173) is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
On March 5, 2018, this court examined the complete litigation history of this case, noting that it had "been pending for nearly five years and, with the assistance of prior pro bono counsel, discovery ha[d] been completed [and the] case was ready for trial on a single claim for battery." Opinion and Order 2-3, 5, ECF #158. In his most recent motion, Benton lists the discovery he wishes to pursue, but gives no explanation as to why that discovery is relevant to his sole remaining claim for battery, nor any indication of why discovery should be permitted to be had nearly a year after discovery closed.
Benton had the assistance of pro bono counsel from May 8, 2015 (ECF #60), until June 9, 2016 (ECF #75), and again from June 20, 2016 (ECF #79), until January 22, 2018 (ECF #152), during which time his attorney assisted him in amending his pleadings, engaging in discovery (including multiple depositions), and presenting and defending dispositive motions.
Discovery closed on July 24, 2017 (ECF #120) and Benton filed his motion on May 31, 2018. --------
Both on his own, and with the help of pro bono counsel for a period of well over two years, Benton had ample time to obtain the evidence he now seeks. As detailed in Legacy's response to Benton's motion, the discovery deadline in this case was repeatedly extended, and extensive discovery conducted, including the taking of ten depositions and the production of nearly 10,000 pages of documents. Defs.' Resp. 2-4, ECF #176. Moreover, it is, at best, questionable that many of the requested documents exist and, even if they exist, they have scant to no bearing on Benton's sole remaining claim for battery. Id. at 4-6.
Based on the above, this court concludes that the reopening of discovery would result in prejudice to Legacy, with no corresponding benefit to the prompt resolution of Benton's remaining claim. /// /// /// ///
ORDER
Benton's Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF #173) is DENIED.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2018.
/s/ Youlee Yim You
Youlee Yim You
United States Magistrate Judge