Opinion
1:20 CV 168 MR WCM
07-13-2022
APRIL LEDFORD Plaintiff, v. BRYSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHRIS DUDLEY; TOWN OF BRYSON CITY; Defendants.
ORDER
W. CARLETON METCALF, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's “Request for Deposition” (the “Motion,” Doc. 74).
On October 14, 2021, a Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (the “Pretrial Order,” Doc. 57) was entered setting, among other deadlines, a deadline of July 8, 2022 to complete court-enforceable discovery. The Pretrial Order also set the trial for the January 9, 2023 trial term. Id.
On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Motion, in which Plaintiff requests “a Deposition in this Matter, with a date and location - or via Zoom - to be determined in the near future based on the availability of both parties.” Doc. 74.
However, it is not clear whether Plaintiff is providing the court with a copy of a request directed to Defendants or asking the court to take some action.
If Plaintiff is providing the court with a copy of a request directed to Defendants, Plaintiff is reminded that the Pretrial Order provides that discovery materials are not to be filed. Doc. 57 at 2-3.
If Plaintiff is asking the court to act, as the document (which is one sentence long and not accompanied by a brief) does not explain the relief Plaintiff seeks or why the court should grant it, and does not include information regarding Defendants' position, the Motion fails to “state with particularity” the grounds for the request and the relief or order sought, as required by the Local Rules. See LCvR 7.1(a).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiff's Request for Deposition” (Doc. 74) seeks some action by the court, it is DENIED.