United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
LONDI L. LAFLEUR
KARLEEN LEGLUE, ET AL.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (R.
Doc. 134) filed on May 15, 2018. The motion is opposed. (R.
April 20, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action,
alleging that on January 26, 2016, she was attacked by the
defendant Karleen Leglue, a deputy of the Livingston Parish
Sheriff's Office, while incarcerated at the Livingston
Parish Detention Center (“LDPC”). (R. Doc. 1).
25, 2016, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting, among
other things, the non-expert discovery deadline on May 1,
2017. (R. Doc. 22). The Court subsequently extended the
non-expert discovery deadline to June 12, 2017. (R. Doc. 56).
12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Trial and
Reset Deadlines in Scheduling Order. (R. Doc. 84).
August 24, 2017, the Court extended the remaining expert
discovery deadlines and the dispositive motion deadline on
the basis that Plaintiff was continuing treatment,
specifically noting that non-expert discovery was closed. (R.
Doc. 95). The Court noted that the deadline to complete fact
discovery had expired.
October 17, 2017, the Court again extended the remaining
expert discovery deadlines on the basis that she had not
reached maximum medical improvement. (R. Doc. 100).
December 13, 2017, the district judge granted Plaintiff's
Motion to Continue Trial and Reset Deadlines in Scheduling
Order (R. Doc. 84), and converted the pre-trial conference
into a “status conference at which time a new trial
date and deadline for the submission for proposed pretrial
orders shall be established.” (R. Doc. 114).
February 26, 2018, the district judge held a status
conference with the parties, resetting the jury trial in this
action to commence on November 13, 2018. (R. Doc. 133). The
district judge did not set a new deadline to complete
non-expert discovery. Moreover, the district judge has
clarified that the trial date was continued in light of
Plaintiff's ongoing treatment. (R. Doc. 142 at 1).
Furthermore, while the Order reopened discovery related to
Plaintiff's ongoing medical treatment, it also states
“that Plaintiff has had sufficient time to conduct
discovery in this matter, a relatively straightforward
excessive force case, and that reopening discovery would
unduly delay proceedings.” (R. Doc. 142 at 1-2).
15, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel to
obtain documents in response to Request for Production of
Documents Nos. 1 and 3 of her Second Set of Requests for
Production of Documents. Plaintiff asserts that the documents
she are seeking are relevant to her Monel claims and
Defendants' proposed affirmative defense of failure to
administratively exhaust. In opposition, Defendants argue that
the information sought falls outside the scope of discovery.
(R. Doc. 137).
Law and Analysis
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is Untimely
non-expert discovery in this action, with the exception of
discovery pertaining to Plaintiff's ongoing treatment,
closed on June 12, 2017. Accordingly, the instant motion to
compel, which was filed on May 15, 2018, is untimely.
See LR 26(d)(1) (“Absent exceptional
circumstances, no motions relating to discovery, including
motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), 29, and 37, shall be filed
after the expiration of the discovery deadline, unless they
are filed within seven days after the discovery deadline and
pertain to conduct during the final seven days of
discovery.”); see also Price v. Maryland Cas.
Co., 561 F.2d 609, 611 (5th Cir. 1977) (denying motion
to compel filed after the close of discovery where party had
been “inexcusably dilatory in his efforts”);
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Sonia Investments, 237
F.R.D. 395, 396-99 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (motion to compel was
untimely filed two weeks after the discovery deadline; motion
should have been filed within discovery deadline); Wells
v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 203 ...