United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's
“Notice, ” (Doc. No. 86), in which he seeks an
extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines,
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 87),
Defendants' Response to the Motion to Compel, (Doc. No.
91), and Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, (Doc. No.
pro se incarcerated Plaintiff filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint, (Doc. No.
2), passed initial review on claims of excessive force
against Defendants Alejandro Phillips, Jonathan Baker, Angela
Rorie, Lisa Martin and Albert Lamburt.
Extension of Time
court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). A scheduling order may be
modified “only for good cause and with the judge's
consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “Good
cause” means that “scheduling deadlines cannot be
met despite a party's diligent efforts.” Dilmar
Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F.Supp. 959, 980
(D.S.C. 1997) (citations omitted). The court has “wide
latitude in controlling discovery and … [t]he latitude
given the district courts extends as well to the manner in
which it orders the course and scope of discovery.”
Ardrey v. United Parcel Service, 798 F.3d 679, 682
(4th Cir. 1986).
instant case, the Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order
setting the discovery cutoff date as March 14, 2019, and the
dispositive motions deadline as April 13, 2019. (Doc. No.
64). The Court subsequently extended these deadlines to May
20, 2019 and July 8, 2019, respectively, and cautioned the
parties that no further extensions would be granted except on
a showing of extraordinary circumstances. (Doc. No. 85 at 2).
contends that the scheduling order deadlines should be
extended because he was recently transferred to a new
facility, production of docs might have been sent to the last
facility, Defendants have not complied with discovery
requests, and Defendants have not answered several motions
and objections to their responses that has delayed Plaintiff
gathering the necessary evidence to complete discovery.
extended discovery deadline has not yet expired and Plaintiff
has failed to show the existence of extraordinary
circumstances that would warrant further extending that
deadline. To the extent that Plaintiff asks the Court to
compel Defendants to respond to his various motions, they are
under no obligation to do so and the Court sees no reason to
compel them to file responses at this time. Therefore,
Plaintiff's Notice, (Doc. No. 86), will be construed as a
Motion for Extension of the Scheduling Order Deadlines and
will be denied.
Motion to Compel
rules of discovery are to be accorded broad and liberal
construction. See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,
177 (1979); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507
(1947). All civil discovery, whether sought from parties or
nonparties, is limited in scope by Rule 26(b)(1) in two
fundamental ways: (1) the matter sought must be
“relevant to any party's claim or defense, ”
and (2) discovery must also be “proportional to the
needs of the case.” Va. Dep't of Corr. v.
Jordan, 921 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)). Relevance on its own is not a high
bar; the proportionality requirement “relieves parties
from the burden of taking unreasonable steps to ferret out
every relevant document.” Id. Whether to grant
or deny a motion to compel is generally left within the
district court's broad discretion. Id.
asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce documents that
he requested on February 10, 2019, requests for production
numbers 4, 6, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 26, and refers to
several Motions to which Defendants allegedly failed to
Lambert, Martin, Phillips and Rorie filed a Response arguing
that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure by failing to confer with them before filing
the Motion to Compel. Defendants further explain why each
request should be denied. See (Doc. No. 91).
Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to comply with the
applicable rules and that his Motion to Compel is meritless
for the reasons set forth in Defendants' Response.
Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel will be denied.
Motion to ...