Opinion
CV-19-00422-TUC-RM
07-29-2022
Jeremy Pinson, Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant.
ORDER
HONORABLE ROSEMARY MARQUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 12, 2022, Plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, through counsel, filed a Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter Deemed Admitted. (Doc. 94.) In the Motion, Plaintiff challenges Defendant United States of America's response to Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 4. (Id.)
On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed a Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission. (Doc. 97.) In the Consent Motion, Defendant states that the parties' counsel are working to resolve the matters raised in Plaintiff's Motion, which would eliminate the need for briefing and decision on the Motion. (Id.) Accordingly, Defendant requests, with the consent of Plaintiff's counsel, that the deadline for responding to the Motion be extended to August 5, 2022. (Id.)
The Court's Scheduling Order prohibits the parties from filing written discovery motions without leave of Court. (Doc. 41 at 2.) In the event of a discovery dispute, the parties must engage in personal consultation in a sincere effort to resolve the conflict expeditiously. (Id.) If a discovery dispute cannot be resolved despite the parties' sincere efforts, “either party may file a request for a telephonic conference or for permission to file a written discovery motion.” (Id. at 3.) Any such request “must specify the results of the parties' personal consultation and the matter(s) remaining in dispute.” (Id.)
Plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court before filing her Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission. Furthermore, it appears that the Motion was filed prematurely, as further personal consultation between the parties may resolve the matters raised in the Motion without Court intervention.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion without prejudice and with leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance with the provisions of the Court's Scheduling Order, if the parties are unable to resolve the matters raised in the Motion through further personal consultation. The Court will deny Defendant's Consent Motion to Extend Deadline as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Objection to Request for Admission or to Order the Matter Deemed Admitted (Doc. 94) is denied without prejudice and with leave to file a request to re-file the Motion, in accordance with the provisions of the Court's Scheduling Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Consent Motion to Extend Deadline for Response (Doc. 97) is denied as moot.