Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Albert DeLeon,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Dora Schriro, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________)

CV 04-446-PHX-PGR (MS)

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend" (Doc. # 150) and "Motion for
16

Order to Extend/Modify Discovery Process" (Doc. # 149). In his motion to amend,
17

Plaintiff seeks to add a claim of injury related to the confiscation of his orthopedic shoes
18

and a resulting "bulging disc." Plaintiff states that at the time his amended complaint
19

was filed on October 22, 2004, he did not know of this condition.
20

In his motion for an extension of discovery deadlines, Plaintiff seeks to propound
21

more requests for production of documents and interrogatories to Defendant Sloan
22

because Defendants did not serve upon him certain documents or answer certain
23

interrogatories.
24

The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to amend without prejudice. This case has
25

been pending since March 2004. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in October
26

2004. At this juncture, amendment of the complaint would be untimely unless Plaintiff
27

can demonstrate that he did not know of the "bulging disk" until some time in July 2005.
28

Therefore, for the sake of bringing this case to a close (the dispositive motions deadline
Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT Document 155 Filed 08/16/2005 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is currently October 17, 2005), if Plaintiff refiles a motion related to adding the bulging disk injury, Plaintiff shall seek only to supplement the existing amended complaint, and not to amend it. Plaintiff shall submit as an exhibit to his motion to supplement a copy of his medical records indicating that date on which he discovered a bulging disk injury. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to propound further discovery. The discovery deadline passed on July 15, 2005, almost two weeks prior to the filing of the motion for extension. If Plaintiff did not receive sufficient answers to discovery, Plaintiff was instructed that he must file a motion to compel by September 15, 2005. [See Doc. # 127]. If a motion to compel is filed, the motion must state the request or interrogatory at issue, the response, and why the Court should compel the information. Even if the Court would allow Plaintiff to propound further discovery, the notices of discovery filed on July 27, 2005 shall be stricken as improperly filed. Requests for discovery from Defendants "shall not be filed with the Court." See Local Rule (Civil) 5.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend" (Doc. # 150) is denied without prejudice pending the refiling of a motion to supplement with supporting information. 2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Order to Extend/Modify Discovery Process" (Doc. # 149) is DENIED. 3. The documents filed at document numbers 147 and 148 are STRICKEN as improperly filed. DATED this 16th day of August, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00446-JAT

2 Document 155

Filed 08/16/2005

Page 2 of 2