Filed: Nov. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He has filed three discovery motions — two to compel (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) and one for additional interrogatories and requests for production (ECF No. 17). Defendant Jones has filed oppositions to each of those motions. ECF Nos. 21, 23, & 24. In the wake of those oppositions, plaintiff has filed four supplements to his motions and a declaration in
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He has filed three discovery motions — two to compel (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) and one for additional interrogatories and requests for production (ECF No. 17). Defendant Jones has filed oppositions to each of those motions. ECF Nos. 21, 23, & 24. In the wake of those oppositions, plaintiff has filed four supplements to his motions and a declaration in s..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed three discovery motions — two to compel (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) and one for additional interrogatories and requests for production (ECF No. 17). Defendant Jones has filed oppositions to each of those motions. ECF Nos. 21, 23, & 24. In the wake of those oppositions, plaintiff has filed four supplements to his motions and a declaration in support of one of those supplements. ECF Nos. 27-31. This is not permitted by the local rules which, instead, permit him a single reply in support of each motion. See Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, the court will consider plaintiff's first two supplements (ECF Nos. 27 & 28) as his "replies." These supplements were filed on October 11, 2017 and are closest in time to the relevant oppositions. See ECF No. 28 at 6; Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner's court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for mailing). The court will strike plaintiff's other supplements. As noted above, the local rules do not contemplate numerous supplements to a motion. Permitting such filings impairs the court's ability to timely adjudicate the relevant motions. Moreover, these continuously filed supplements are unfair to defendant who, having filed his oppositions in a timely manner, is not afforded an opportunity to address the various arguments and exhibits raised after the fact.
The relevant discovery motions — ECF Nos. 17, 19, & 20 — are deemed submitted based on the limitations outlined in the foregoing paragraph. The court will not consider any further filings from plaintiff in support of these motions.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
1. The supplements filed at ECF Nos. 29 & 30 and the declaration filed at ECF No. 31 are STRICKEN and the Clerk is directed to make a notation on the docket; and
2. The motion for leave for additional interrogatories (ECF No. 17) and the motions to compel (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) are deemed submitted. The court will not consider further filings from plaintiff in support of these motions.
