On January 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and order sanctions, and a motion for an extension of time to complete discovery. On January 14, 2010, defendants filed an opposition. On January 29, 2010, plaintiff filed a reply. On February 2, 2010, the undersigned denied plaintiff's motion to compel, denied the motion for sanctions, and granted the motion for an extension of time.
On February 12, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and a second request for an extension of time to complete discovery. Plaintiff presents a copy of his mail log, which evidences that plaintiff did not receive defendants' December 15, 2009 objections to plaintiff's November 9, 2009 Request for Admissions and that plaintiff did mail his November 16, 2009 Requests for Production of Documents to defendants. Again, however, there is no showing of willful behavior on the part of the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to conduct discovery. Per the February 2, 2010 revised scheduling order, discovery was continued to March 29, 2010 from January 15, 2010. The order stated that "all discovery requests shall be filed not later than sixty days prior to that date." Per plaintiff's calculation, sixty days prior to that date is January 27, 2010, seven days before his receipt of the revised scheduling order. Due to this discrepancy, plaintiff seeks an additional thirty days within which to complete discovery. Plaintiff claims this extension is necessary because of a prison's "restrictive environment" in which to "type, compose, cop[y], [and] mail" discovery requests and because of his assumption that defendants will continue to refuse to cooperate with discovery.
The court begins by noting that the March 29, 2010 discovery deadline is nearly two and a half months beyond the original discovery deadline. Further, it was contemplated that the extension would allow plaintiff the opportunity to re-serve his Requests for Production of Documents that defendants claim to have not received and to respond to defendants' objections to plaintiff's Request for Admissions that plaintiff claims to have not received. Lastly, because the undersigned did not find a willful refusal on the part of the defendants to cooperate with discovery, no assumptions may be made that there will be a willful refusal in the future.
Based thereon, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's February 12, 2010 motion for reconsideration is denied, and
2. Plaintiff's February 12, 2010 request for an extension of time to conduct discovery is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...