Filed: Aug. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge. On July 3, 2012, plaintiff pro se Allan K. Morgal filed a "Request for more time to Respond to Defendant[`]s Motion for Summary Judgment[,]" which was docketed as a motion and the court has deemed to be a motion. Mot. (Doc. 160) at 1. The defendant did not file a response to this motion. Shortly thereafter, on July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Request for Discovery[.]" Mot. (Doc. 161). Construing that "Request" as a motion, this court allowed
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge. On July 3, 2012, plaintiff pro se Allan K. Morgal filed a "Request for more time to Respond to Defendant[`]s Motion for Summary Judgment[,]" which was docketed as a motion and the court has deemed to be a motion. Mot. (Doc. 160) at 1. The defendant did not file a response to this motion. Shortly thereafter, on July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Request for Discovery[.]" Mot. (Doc. 161). Construing that "Request" as a motion, this court allowed ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, Senior District Judge.
On July 3, 2012, plaintiff pro se Allan K. Morgal filed a "Request for more time to Respond to Defendant[`]s Motion for Summary Judgment[,]" which was docketed as a motion and the court has deemed to be a motion. Mot. (Doc. 160) at 1. The defendant did not file a response to this motion. Shortly thereafter, on July 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a "Request for Discovery[.]" Mot. (Doc. 161). Construing that "Request" as a motion, this court allowed defendants to file a response. Ord. (Doc. 163) at 2:19-22. Defendants timely filed a response on August 1, 2012 (Doc. 165). Thus, in accordance with this court's prior order, plaintiff has "seven (7) days after service of [that] response, . . ., to file a reply if he so desires."
Given what it perceived, in hindsight perhaps inaccurately, the relationship between plaintiff's motion for an extension of time and his discovery motion, this court deliberately held the former motion in abeyance, anticipating that it would resolve both issues at once. The discovery motion is not yet ripe for this court's consideration in that there is time for plaintiff to file a reply if he so chooses. In the meantime, on August 2, 2012, plaintiff filed his response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, included voluminous exhibits thereto. See Docs. 165-169. Those filings render moot plaintiff's motion for an extension of time.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's "Request for more time to Respond to Defendant[']s Motion for Summary Judgment[]" is DENIED as moot;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, by way of clarification, that:
(2) in the interest of justice, Plaintiff's Response to defendant's summary judgment motion (Doc. 165), and accompanying filings (Docs. 166, 167, 168, and 169) are deemed to have been timely filed; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(3) also in the interest of justice, defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order in which to file, if any, a reply to plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for summary judgment.
