Opinion
Case No. 1:04-CV-05466-OWW-SMS-P, (Doc. 87).
February 22, 2006
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND SUA SPONTE EXTENDING DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE
Plaintiff Donald Glass ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the discovery deadline was January 27, 2006, and the pre-trial dispositive motion deadline is March 27, 2006. On January 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of the discovery deadline. Defendants filed an opposition on January 24, 2006, and Plaintiff filed a reply on February 1, 2006.
The Court is nonplussed by Defendants' contention that Plaintiff's motion was untimely because is was not served forty-five days before the discovery deadline. The order states that a request for an extension of a deadline must be filed on or before the deadline in question. The forty-five day time period relates to the requirement that the parties serve their discovery requests at least forty-five days before the deadline so that the responding party has the full allotted response time available to him or her. The Court can ascertain no basis for confusion between these requirements. Plaintiff's motion was timely under the Court's order.
The Court agrees that Defendants' previous extensions of time are not necessarily a basis which mandates Plaintiff's request be granted. Nevertheless, the Court is not inclined to look favorably upon an objection such as this when the objecting party has been the recipient of the Court's latitude. In this case, Defendants sought and were granted three extensions of time to file their first response to Plaintiff's complaint, and sought and were granted seven extensions of time to serve responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. The instant request for an extension is Plaintiff's first in this action. The Court is going to grant Plaintiff's motion. Since the deadline for filing pre-trial dispositive motions is March 27, 2006, the Court will sua sponte extend the deadline beyond the new discovery deadline so that Defendants do not find themselves in the position of having to respond to discovery while drafting a dispositive motion. The Court understands that Plaintiff has actively conducted discovery in this action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's claims that (1) he was beaten and sexually assaulted by Defendants Beer, Keener, Sloss, Morales, and Dill, and (2) he was retaliated against for filing inmate appeals by Defendants Beer, Keener, Sloss, Morales, Dill, Butts, Adkison, Gonzales, Castillo, Buckley, Streeter, Marshall, and Loren. The discovery sought by Plaintiff must be relevant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). If it is not or if other grounds exist to shield Defendants from further discovery, there are avenues of relief available to Defendants. See e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2), (c).
Defendants may, of course, choose to file a dispositive motion before the deadline.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of the discovery deadline, filed January 19, 2006, is GRANTED and the deadline is extended to June 1, 2006; and
2. The pre-trial dispositive motion deadline is extended to August 1, 2006.
IT IS SO ORDERED.