Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00405-MSK-KMT.
May 20, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the court on "Motion for Leave to Take the Defendants (sic) Written Depositions" (Doc. No. 139, filed March 20, 2008), "Motion for Enlargement of Time" (Doc. No. 143, filed April 7, 2008), "Motion for Court to Compel the Production of Documents" (Doc. No. 145, filed April 7, 2008), and "Motion for Enlargement of Time" (#155, filed May 9, 2008).
The plaintiff has requested permission to take the defendants' depositions by written questions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 31. The latest time to conduct a deposition upon written question is governed by the court's scheduling order. Written discovery must be served such that responses are due before the close of written discovery. See Summerville v. Local 77, 369 F. Supp. 2d 648, 651 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (written deposition questions are treated like other written discovery, and must be served such that responses are due before the close of written discovery). In the scheduling conference held on October 18, 2007, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland set the discovery cut-off date of January 31, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 97 and 98.) The discovery deadline was extended to April 6, 2008, during a status conference held before me on March 3, 2008. (Doc. No. 136.) There are twenty-three defendants in this case. This motion was filed on March 20, 2008 — just seventeen days prior to the extended discovery cutoff date of April 6, 2008. It is unreasonable for the plaintiff to request the written depositions of all twenty-three defendants only seventeen days prior to the discovery cutoff date. In addition, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to obtain relevant and necessary information through interrogatories or requests for production. Furthermore, he has not indicated the nature of the testimony he expects to elicit, nor has he explained why the testimony sought is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 29(b)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion (#139) is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of additional documents from Defendants. (Doc. No. 145.) According to the Affidavit of Shana Millspaugh attached to Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the documents were provided to Plaintiff by hand-delivery on April 3, 2008. (Doc. No. 153.) Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (#145) is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to complete discovery. (Doc. No. 143.) The discovery cutoff was extended once by over sixty days. (Doc. No. 136.) Plaintiff requests a further extension of another sixty days to allow "defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's discovery requests" and to "prepare his handwritten depositions . . . requests for interrogatories . . . and his request for admissions. . . ." (Doc. No. 143, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has had ample time to prepare any written discovery. Plaintiff is well aware of the procedure for requesting written discovery and, in fact, did prepare written requests for production of documents to which he received responses. In addition, Plaintiff's motion for extension of time was filed April 7, 2008, one day after the discovery cutoff. When an enlargement of time is sought after expiration of a specified deadline, the movant must show that "the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect." Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). The plaintiff does not acknowledge that the deadlines have expired, nor does he establish excusable neglect. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 143) is DENIED.
Plaintiff has filed another motion for extension of time to complete discovery and to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 155.) To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to extend the discovery cutoff, the motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth above. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than June 12, 2008.