Opinion
23-3014-JWL
05-17-2024
MATTHEW CHARLES SCHLOBOHM, Plaintiff, v. DONALD ASH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on a motion (Doc. 77) seeking an extension of time to respond to the Martinez Report and to file an amended motion to compel. The filing also includes a motion “to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiff states that he needs additional time to gather more evidence “responding to the fanciful, misleading and fundamentally false Martinez Report produced by the Interested Party.” Id. at 2. He seeks an extension of fourteen (14) days. This is Plaintiff's third request for additional time to respond to the report. Plaintiff's request is granted. The deadline to file his response and amended motion is extended to May 24, 2024. Plaintiff is also reminded that discovery has not begun in this matter. At this stage, Plaintiff needs to focus on concisely explaining his disagreement with the report and supporting his assertions with something more than broad, conclusory statements.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to force the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (“UG”), a defendant in this matter, to comply with his Kansas Open Records Act (“KORA”) requests. Id. at 4. Plaintiff requested “all records in your possession from all sources and any date relevant to MATTHEW CHARLES SCHLOBOHM” and “all score/evaluation/tabulation sheets . . . of RFP 35252 for Jail Management Software issued for the most recent year.” Id. at 2, 3.
Plaintiff's request is denied. The Order for the Martinez Report provides that “[d]iscovery by Plaintiff shall not commence until Plaintiff has received and reviewed any Court-ordered answer or response to the Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 49, at 4.) Allowing Plaintiff to conduct an open records request to a party defendant would defeat the purpose of the stay. See McRoberts v. Rosas, 2022 WL 1538690, *3 (D. Kan. May 16, 2022) (citing Smith v. The City of Wellsville, KS, et al., 2020 WL 584449, *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 6, 2020)). “[I]f a stay of discovery is in place, Plaintiff should not be able to pursue what would otherwise be considered discovery through another channel.” Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 77) is granted in part. Plaintiff's response to the Martinez Report and amended motion to compel must be filed on or before May 24, 2024. Plaintiff's “motion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.