Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 RegisterActionDate "2017-09-26" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER denying 58 Request for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Process. On 02/24/2017, the Court adopted a scheduling order setting 08/28/2017 as the discovery deadline. Via the instant 58 Request, dated as signed on 09/20/2017, Plaintiff seeks a 90-day extension of the discovery deadline. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Plaintiff must show good cause to alter the scheduling order, which (according to the applicable commentary) requires him to show that, despite his exercise of appropriate diligence, he could not complete discovery during the allotted time. Local Rule 26.1(d) similarly prohibits any extension of the discovery deadline absent proof of diligence. Finally, because Plaintiff filed 58 Request after the discovery deadline passed, he must show excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B). In support of his belated request for an extension of the discovery deadline, Plaintiff has first alleged that he "just recently received a voluminous assortment of documents from [what he refers to as the Group I] Defendants.... Plaintiff has discovered documents which appear incomplete and a subsequent request for documents will be necessary. Additionally, Plaintiff is still awaiting documents he previously requested from Group I Defendants which are necessary to Plaintiff's claims in this action, and will possibly lead to the discovery of other necessary documents." Plaintiff, however, has not alleged when he served the document requests that resulted in the recent production or that remain for production. Under Local Rule 26.1(c), Plaintiff bore the obligation to make "adequate provisions... for documents to be produced... within the discovery period." If Plaintiff served the document requests at issue 60 days or less before the discovery deadline, he did not make "adequate provisions" to pursue follow-up discovery based on the production he recently received or anticipates receiving, because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 allowed Defendants at least 30 days to respond to the first round of requests and would have allowed them an additional 30 days to respond to any follow-up requests. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff has not established that he acted with the requisite diligence to permit an extension of the discovery deadline for pursuit of follow-up discovery related to the documents he recently received or anticipates receiving from the Group I Defendants. As secondary support for the extension sought in 58 Request, Plaintiff has alleged that he "has written numerous letters to the Office of the District Attorney for Rowan County [requesting certain documents]; however, he has received no reply." Plaintiff has not explained why he failed to request issuance of a subpoena directed to the Rowan County District Attorney during the discovery period. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show that he made "adequate provisions" to obtain documents from the Rowan County District Attorney during the discovery period and has failed to show that he acted with the diligence required to establish good cause for an extension of the discovery deadline. Finally, Plaintiff has complained that, due to a physical handicap, "[t]he time constraints placed on [him] are physically burdensome...." Plaintiff has shown the wherewithal to file 1 Complaint, which consists of 23 pages of detailed allegations, supported by another 99 pages of attached exhibits. He also has filed 51 Motion to Compel Discovery, supported by 52 Declaration. Moreover, the Court adopted a six-month discovery period. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find that Plaintiff's handicap entitles him to a belated extension of the discovery deadline. At a minimum, Plaintiff has failed to show that he lacked the capacity to make a timely request for extension of the discovery deadline and thus the Court does not find excusable neglect as required to revive the expired discovery period. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 09/26/2017. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 09/26/2017)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de0 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de100 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de86 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de102 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-00396_de87 @default.