Filed: Feb. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 274. KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On January 25, 2018, Defendants Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Ellen Jacobs filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Paul Somers. (Dkt. No. 271.) Defendants' motion is based on Plaintiff's alleged: (1) failure to comply with the Court's July 11, 2017 discovery order, and (2) violation of the Court's July 13, 2017 protective ord
Summary: ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN DISCOVERY Re: Dkt. No. 274. KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On January 25, 2018, Defendants Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Ellen Jacobs filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Paul Somers. (Dkt. No. 271.) Defendants' motion is based on Plaintiff's alleged: (1) failure to comply with the Court's July 11, 2017 discovery order, and (2) violation of the Court's July 13, 2017 protective orde..
More
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION; DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
Re: Dkt. No. 274.
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On January 25, 2018, Defendants Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Ellen Jacobs filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff Paul Somers. (Dkt. No. 271.) Defendants' motion is based on Plaintiff's alleged: (1) failure to comply with the Court's July 11, 2017 discovery order, and (2) violation of the Court's July 13, 2017 protective order. (Dkt. Nos. 245, 246.)
Plaintiff's opposition was due on February 8, 2018. Plaintiff did not file his opposition; instead, on February 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant request to extend the time to respond to Defendants' motion, as well as a request to reopen discovery. (Plf.'s Req., Dkt. No. 274.) Plaintiff asserts that he requires the reopening of discovery so that he may "disprove[] Defendant[s'] accusations," presumably in regard to the alleged violation of the protective order. (Id. at 2.) On February 13, 2018, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's request for an extension of time. (Defs.' Opp'n, Dkt. No. 275.)
The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for the reopening of discovery. As an initial matter, the undersigned lacks authority to reopen discovery; such requests must be made of the presiding judge. Further, the Court disagrees that any discovery is required to respond to Defendants' motion with respect to the violation of the protective order. There is no reason why discovery of Defendants is necessary for Plaintiff to counter Defendants' assertions of what Plaintiff allegedly did; Plaintiff has knowledge of whether or not he acted in the way Defendants assert. The Court also notes that Defendants' arguments appear to be primarily based on a publicly available article that Plaintiff published on his own website, which further highlights that the current dispute is about Plaintiff's actions, not Defendants'.
With respect to Plaintiff's request for an extension of the opposition deadline, the Court notes that Plaintiff's request is untimely, as it was not filed until after Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for sanctions was already due. Further, Plaintiff's request does not comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3(a); for example, Plaintiff does not describe any efforts made to obtain a stipulation to the time change.1 These reasons alone warrant denial of Plaintiff's request for an extension of time.
The Court finds, however, that Defendants' motion requests significant issue and monetary sanctions. For that reason alone, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for an extension of time.2 Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this order to file his opposition; failure to do so will result in the Court granting Defendants' motion for sanctions as unopposed, pursuant to the undersigned's standing order. (Westmore Standing Ord. ¶ 22.) Defendants' reply is due seven days thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
