ORDER

EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Anthony L. Rodrigues is a pro se prisoner currently confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Corrections Corporation of America's ("CCA") Red Rock Correctional Center ("RRCC") in Eloy, Arizona. On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint involves his incarceration at Arizona State Prison Complex-Kingman. The Court ordered Defendants to answer Count Two and dismissed all other claims. (Doc. 16 at 7). All Defendants have timely answered or responded and all issues are joined. (Docs. 27, 29, 66). A fully briefed Motion to Dismiss is pending. (Docs. 29, 66, 88, 90).

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. 21, 22) to which Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 26) and Supplemental Response (Doc. 85). Plaintiff filed his Reply on February 25, 2016. (Doc. 95). Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order involves his incarceration at RRCC.

Several motions are deemed ripe for consideration and are discussed below.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants Ryan and Diaz' Motion to Seal Plaintiff's Medical Records (Doc. 84)

In Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 85), Defendants attach Plaintiff's medical records. Defendants request that the Court seal the Plaintiff's medical records because they contain confidential, personal information. Defendants cite the Court to numerous cases which support the request. Plaintiff has not responded. For good cause shown, the Court will grant the Motion to Seal.

B. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice Motion in Support of Preliminary Injunction and Request for TRO [Dkt. 82](Doc. 87)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff's "Notice Motion In Support of Preliminary Injunction And Request for TRO" (Doc. 82) pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(m) on the basis that Plaintiff's Notice is not authorized by statute, rule, or court order. Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike. The Court may deem Plaintiff's failure to file an answering memorandum as consent to the granting of Defendants' Motion and dispose of the Motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2 (i). In addition, to the extent Plaintiff's Notice is an attempt to supplement his Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 21), such an attempt must be made through a properly filed motion. To the extent Plaintiff's Notice is an attempt to raise rebuttal arguments to Defendants' responsive briefing, the proper manner to raise such arguments is through a reply. Therefore, for good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 87).

C. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses (Doc. 81) and Defendants' Request for Extension of Deadline For Making Expert Disclosures (First Request) (Doc. 94)

Pending before the Court are Defendants' fully briefed Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 29, 66) and Plaintiff's fully briefed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Emergency TRO (Doc. 21). On October 23, 2015, the Court issued a scheduling order regarding discovery in the case (Doc. 35). In the interests of judicial and litigant economy, the parties request that extensions of time be granted to comply with the disclosure of expert witnesses. For good cause shown, the Court will grant the parties' requests.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants Ryan and Diaz' Motion to Seal (Doc. 84).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the proposed "Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E" to Defendants Ryan and Diaz' Supplemental Response (Doc. 85). The proposed "Exhibit 2 Attachments A-E" is lodged under seal at Doc. 86.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Strike (Doc. 87).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiff's "Notice Motion In Support Of Preliminary Injunction And Request For TRO" (Doc. 82).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadline for Naming Expert Witnesses (Doc.81) and Defendants' Request for Extension of Deadline For Making Expert Disclosures (First Request) (Doc. 94).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff file his expert disclosure 60 days from the date of the Court's ruling on the pending Motion to Dismiss, should any claim survive. Defendants shall file their expert disclosures 90 days from the filing of the Court's ruling, should any claim survive.