Opinion
Civ. 1:20-CV-1171
04-04-2022
CARL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. THERESA DELBALSO, et al., Defendants.
Wilson Judge.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Martin C. Carlson United States Magistrate Judge.
In this action, the pro se plaintiff has filed a motion to compel the production of discovery on March 21, 2022 (Doc. 121), along with a motion to extend the discovery deadlines. (Doc. 123). The defendants have responded to these motions by noting that all properly served discovery has been answered, by observing that the plaintiff has recently propounded new discovery requests, and by stating that there is no need to amend or extend the current discovery deadline of May 31, 2022.
We agree. First, to the extent that the defendants have already responded to these discovery demands these discovery issues are now moot. The mootness doctrine recognizes a fundamental truth in litigation: “[i]f developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
Second, to the extent that Robinson seeks answers to new discovery demands or an extension of discovery deadlines these requests are premature. The plaintiff is advised that no motion is required to request production of documents or answers to interrogatories. Rather under federal practice the plaintiff Amust direct his discovery requests to defense counsel, and only after a dispute has arisen, file a motion to compel. White v. Bledsoe, CIV. 3:CV-08-01388, 2008 WL 4793737 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2008). Moreover the party receiving the request for production of documents and interrogatories has 30 days in which to respond. Therefore, the defendants are not delinquent in any response to these discovery demands at this time. Likewise, a request to extend the discovery deadlines is also premature since the discovery deadline currently extends to May 31, 2022. Accordingly, the motions to compel and extend discovery deadlines (Docs. 121 and 123) are DENIED.
So ordered.