United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
C. DEVER III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13, 2016, John Laschkewitsch ("Laschkewitsch" or
"plaintiff') filed a motion seeking to compel
production of documents from Banner Life Insurance Company
("Banner" or "defendant"), to stay
discovery, and to change the venue of Banner's deposition
of Laschkewitsch [D.E. 51], along with a supporting
memorandum [D.E. 52]. On June 24, 2016, Banner moved to
strike Laschkewitsch's memorandum in support for
exceeding the page-length limitation in this court's
Local Civil Rules [D.E. 58] and responded in opposition to
Laschkewitsch's motion [D.E. 59]. On July 21, 2016,
Laschkewitsch responded in opposition to Banner's motion
to strike [D.E. 77]. On July 25, 2016, Banner replied [D.E.
81]. As explained below, the court grants Banner's motion
to strike and denies Laschkewitsch's motion to compel, to
stay discovery, and to change venue.
the court considers Banner's motion to strike
Laschkewitsch's memorandum filed in support of his motion
to compel, to stay discovery, and to change venue. See [D.E.
58]. Laschkewitsch's supporting memorandum totals 30
pages, excluding exhibits. See [D.E. 52]. This court's
Local Civil Rules limit memoranda filed in support of motions
relating to discovery disputes to 10 pages. See Local Civ. R.
26.1(d)(1). Laschkewitsch's error cannot be attributed to
unfamiliarity with this court's Local Civil Rules,
because he has litigated three other cases in the Eastern
District of North Carolina involving essentially the same
subject matter. See, e.g.. Laschkewitsch v. Am.
Nat'l Life Ins. Co.. No. 5:15-CV-21-D, 2016 WL
4184422 (E.D. N.C. Aug. 5, 2016) (unpublished! appeal
dismissed. No. 16-2003, 2016 WL 7378888 (4th Cir. Dec.
20, 2016) (per curiam) (unpublished); Laschkewitsch v.
Lincoln Life & Annuity Distribs.. Inc.. 47 F.Supp.3d
327 (E.D. N.C. 2014), appeal dismissed. 616
F.App'x 102 (4th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished);
Reliastar Life Ins. Co. v. Laschkewitsch. No.
5:13-CV-210-BO, 2014 WL 2211033 (E.D. N.C. May 28, 2014)
(unpublished), affd, 597 F.App'x 159 (4th Cir.) (per
curiam) (unpublished), cert, denied. 136 S.Ct. 593
(2015). Indeed, this court has already warned Laschkewitsch
that "[t]hough plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the
Court may not hold him to the same standards as an attorney,
he is still expected to comply with the rules of procedure
and is advised to familiarize himself with both the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this
Court." Lincoln Life & Annuity Distribs..
Inc.. 2014 WL 2587637. at * 1-2. Thus, the court grants
Banner's motion to strike Laschkewitsch's supporting
October 26, 2015, Laschkewitsch served discovery requests on
Banner. See PL's First Produc. Req. [D.E. 47-7]. On
November 30, 2015, Banner responded. See Def's Resp.
PL's First Produc. Req. [D.E. 47-8]. Laschkewitsch now
moves to compel production of documents, claiming
Banner's responses were either incomplete or
unresponsive, to stay discovery, and to change the venue of
his deposition. See [D.E. 51].
discovery motion will be considered by the court unless the
motion sets forth or has attached thereto, by item, the
specific question, interrogatory, etc., with respect to which
the motion is filed, and any obj ection made along with the
grounds supporting or in opposition to the obj ection."
Local Civ. R. 7.1(c)(2). Additionally, "all motions
made, other than in a hearing or trial, shall be filed with
an accompanying supporting memorandum in the manner
prescribed" by the Local Civil Rules. Id. 7.1
(e). Implicit in the requirement that a supporting memorandum
accompany all motions is a requirement that the supporting
memorandum comply with the relevant Local Civil Rules. This
court's Local Civil Rules impose a 10-page limit on
memoranda filed in support of motions relating to discovery
disputes. See Id. 26.1 (d)(1). Because a supporting
memorandum must accompany any motion, and the court struck
Laschkewitsch's supporting memorandum for failing to
comply with the court's Local Civil Rules,
Laschkewitsch's motion is denied. See Mission
Essential Pers.. LLC v. Worldwide Language Res.. Inc..
No. 5:12-CV-294-D, 2013 WL 5442212, at *2 (E.D. N.C. Sept.
27, 2013) (unpublished); Higgins v. Spence & Spence.
PA.. No. 5:07-CV-33-D(1), 2009 WL 536069, at *2 (E.D.
N.C. Mar. 3, 2009) (unpublished) (collecting cases).
the court GRANTS defendant's motion to strike [D.E. 58]
and DENIES plaintiffs motion to compel, to stay discovery,
and to change the venue of his deposition [D.E. 51].
 Laschkewitsch's response was
untimely under this court's Local Civil Rules. See Local
Civ. R. 7.1(f). He neither sought an extension for filing his
response in opposition nor offered a credible explanation for
his tardiness. Laschkewitsch is familiar with this
court's Local Civil Rules, and the court therefore
declines to consider his response. Cf Laschkewitsch v.
Lincoln Life & Annuity