Opinion
CIVIL NO. 01-280 MCA/LFG
January 25, 2002
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Audrey Newson-Medinas (Newson-Medina) January 18, 2002 Motion for Expansion of Time to Conduct Discovery [Doc. 31]. No response is necessary.
Newson-Medina, a pro se litigant, filed suit in this case on March 12, 2001, nearly one year ago. Following a sua sponte review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1955, Newson-Medinas lawsuit was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). She was authorized, however, to file an amended complaint, and Newson-Medina filed an amended complaint on May 24, 2001 [Doc. 5].
In early June 2001, the Court issued an Initial Scheduling Order establishing various deadlines to submit a provisional discovery plan and Initial Pretrial Report. The Court also set a date for a mandatory Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 scheduling conference. The scheduling conference obligation required that the parties meet and confer by a date certain and make preliminary disclosures as required by Rule 26. Newson-Medina failed to meet and confer; failed to make initial disclosures; failed to cooperate in providing a provisional discovery plan; and failed to submit her portion of the Initial Pretrial Report.
On July 6, 2001, Newson-Medina filed a motion for extension of time to submit a discovery plan and Initial Pretrial Report. She sought a three-week extension [Doc. 13]; however, that request was denied, as it would necessarily require the Court to vacate the Rule 16 scheduling conference set for July 10, 2001.
Newson-Medina failed to appear for the Rule 16 scheduling conference. As a result of her failure to appear, together with her failure to meet and confer, and to participate in providing a provisional discovery plan, Initial Pretrial Report, or submission of Rule 26(a) disclosures, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause [Doc. 15]. The Courts order directed Newson-Medina to show cause, if any she had, why Rule 16 sanctions, including imposition of costs and fees and possible dismissal of her case with prejudice should not be ordered as a result of the aforementioned failures.
On July 17, 2001, Newson-Medina requested that the Court appoint an attorney in this civil action, and on July 19, 2001, the Court denied the request for appointed counsel because her request failed to include information required by Castner v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1992). The Court, however, authorized Newson-Medina to renew her request and provide the Court with information on the Castner factors [Doc. 18].
On July 30, 2001, the Court sua sponte granted Newson-Medina additional time to respond to the Courts Order to Show Cause [Doc. 19]. So as to ensure that she had sufficient time to address the issues raised by the Courts order, the Court extended the time for her response and required Newson-Medina to file her written response and affidavit by August 10, 2001 [Doc. 19].
In accord with the expanded time limit, Newson-Medina filed her response [Doc. 20], and based on the Courts review of the response, the Court concluded that no sanction, other than an award of attorney fees, was appropriate. With this initial Order to Show Cause resolved, the Court issued a Second Initial Scheduling Order establishing deadlines for the parties to meet and confer, to make initial disclosures, to submit a provisional discovery plan and an Initial Pretrial Report, and to appear for a Rule 16 conference to be conducted on September 27, 2001. Following that conference, the Court assigned this case to a standard case management track and set a deadline for completion of discovery as follows: discovery was to be completed by January 28, 2002; motion and filing cut-off by March 27, 2002; and Pretrial Order deadline May 10, 2002. Shortly after the issuance of the Courts scheduling order, Newson-Medina filed a motion to stay all proceedings [Doc. 26]. The Court granted a temporary stay of all proceeding so as to allow Newson-Medina to secure counsel. The Courts order stated in part: [Newson-Medina] requests a three-month stay so as to find an attorney to represent her in this case. This case has already been delayed as a result of Newson-Medinas failure to comply with initial disclosure obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and failure to cooperate in the preparation of the Initial Pretrial Report and provisional discovery plan.
* * *
The Court cannot grant a ninety-day stay due to its obligations under the Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., to expedite the ultimate disposition of this litigation. Similarly, under the districts Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan, promulgated by the Civil Justice Reform Act, a target dispositional date is set for all cases, and a three-month stay would mean that the Court could not bring this case to completion within the time contemplated by the plan. (Doc. 28, pp. 1-2).
While the Court rejected a 90-day stay, it granted Newson-Medina an additional thirty days so as to give her time to secure counsel and to make all disclosures required under the federal rules.
The Court established new case management deadlines as follows: Termination for discovery February 27, 2002 Motions packages relating to discovery filed by April 8, 2002 Plaintiff shall identify in writing any expert witness submit Rule 26 report by December 27, 2001 Defendants shall identify in writing any expert witness submit Rule 26 report by January 28, 2002 Pretrial motions packages, other than discovery motions, shall be filed with the Court no later than April 26, 2002 Pretrial Order:
Plaintiff's portion to Defendants May 28, 2002
Defendant to the Court on or before June 10, 2002
After the expiration of the stay, the Court issued an Order Lifting Stay of proceedings [Doc. 30]. In the Courts order, it noted:
As no attorney has entered his or her appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff Audrey Newson-Medina, she is representing herself as a pro se litigant. While privileged to do so, Plaintiff is reminded that she must comply with all rules of civil procedure as well as all orders and directives of the Court. Failure to make disclosures as required under the law or failure to comply with the rules of procedures or the orders and directives of the Court can result in imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of her case with prejudice. Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992).
Present Motion On January 18, 2002, Newson-Medina filed a new Motion for Expansion of Time to Conduct Discovery. As in her similar requests, Newson-Medina contends that as a pro se litigant, she is unfamiliar with the court system, is trying to learn the function of discovery, is spending time researching interrogatories, and continues in her attempts to secure counsel. She requests another 90-day stay.
While the Court sympathizes with the difficulties a pro se litigant has in attempting to navigate through the precarious waters of civil litigation, the Court is also mindful that an opposing party is prejudiced when a cloud of litigation hangs over its head. Here, nearly a year has elapsed and Defendants still do not know the basis of Newson-Medinas claims.
While some information appears in the amended complaint, Defendants do not know what evidence, if any, Newson-Medina has to support her allegations. Defendants are forced to spend extra time and money learning about the case, and the excessive delays which have been occasioned in this lawsuit significantly increased the costs, and, therefore, the burdens imposed on a party defending a claim. Moreover, these delays are not in keeping with the Courts responsibilities under the Civil Justice Reform Act or under the districts Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan. While it is regrettable that Newson-Medina has been unable to secure the assistance of an attorney, Defendants should not bear the burden of her failure.
The Court concludes that Newson-Medina has not demonstrated good cause for any further extensions, and that the Court accommodated, to a certain extent, Newson-Medinas repeated requests for additional time. These delays all prejudice the Defendants. Just as a court has obligations to ensure that a litigant has a reasonable opportunity to present his/her claims or defenses, the Court has a corresponding obligation to manage its docket to ensure that all cases proceed to final disposition in an expeditious, economical and efficient manner.
Repeated continuances granted to a litigant tend to interfere with the Courts ability to effectively manage its docket. For the reasons outlined in the Courts stay order and for the reasons stated herein, the request is not reasonable.
The Court concludes that Newson-Medinas motion is not well-taken and will be denied. The parties are to adhere to the most recent case management schedule issued on October 28, 2001.