ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(Doc. 20)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

At the request of defense counsel, the Court held an informal, telephonic conference regarding a discovery dispute that is ongoing (Doc. 20). In advance of the conference, the defense reported that the plaintiff has failed to provide any substantive responses to interrogatories and has not produced most, if any, documents responsive to the discovery request. Plaintiff's counsel has noted some personal difficulties and also that the plaintiff's work schedule and his lack of experience in litigation have impeded the ability to timely respond.

The Court appreciates that everyone has unexpected illnesses and emergencies that get in the way of work obligations. However, the discovery requests at issue involve investigation of basic factual issues raised by this litigation. These requests should have been anticipated at the outset of this litigation and efforts made to gather together the needed documentation/information. Indeed, much of this information should have been gathered in preparation for the Rule 26 disclosure.

In any event, the plaintiff has two choices: he can choose to cooperate and comply with the deadlines imposed by the Court or he can dismiss the action. If he fails to choose one of these options, ultimately the choice may be taken from him. If he decides to continue in this litigation, he SHALL immediately redouble his efforts to comply with discovery and SHALL provide immediate, substantive responses to the outstanding discovery. At the conference, the plaintiff's counsel said that the discovery would be provided by January 31, 2020. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The plaintiff SHALL provide substantive discovery responses to all outstanding discovery requests so they are received by defense counsel no later than January 31, 2020. This may be accomplished via email or by overnight mail;

2. Should the plaintiff fail to provide substantive discovery responses to all outstanding discovery requests by January 31, 2020, the defendant is authorized to file a notice of motion to compel no later than February 7, 2020, with the joint statement filed at least seven days before the hearing according to the requirements of Local Rule 251(d);

3. The Court declines to entertain the request to amend the case schedule now. If the motion to compel is necessary, the Court will consider amending the case schedule in conjunction with relief on the motion. If the motion is not needed, the parties SHALL file a joint statement no later than February 7, 2020, indicating whether the case schedule needs to be amended and, if it does, proposing the amended schedule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.