Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . At Wilmington, this 17 th day of October, 2018, having considered the pending motions (D.I. 19, 22); IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (D.I. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to renew; (2) Defendant's motion to compel (D.I. 22) is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's discovery requests on or before November 16 , 2018, for the following reasons: 1. Plaintiff Deborah L. Aranga ("Plaintiff"), who proce
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . At Wilmington, this 17 th day of October, 2018, having considered the pending motions (D.I. 19, 22); IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (D.I. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to renew; (2) Defendant's motion to compel (D.I. 22) is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's discovery requests on or before November 16 , 2018, for the following reasons: 1. Plaintiff Deborah L. Aranga ("Plaintiff"), who procee..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
At Wilmington, this 17th day of October, 2018, having considered the pending motions (D.I. 19, 22);
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (D.I. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to renew; (2) Defendant's motion to compel (D.I. 22) is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's discovery requests on or before November 16, 2018, for the following reasons:
1. Plaintiff Deborah L. Aranga ("Plaintiff"), who proceeds pro se and was granted in forma pauperis status, filed this action on January 5, 2017. On April 20, 2018, she filed a joinder of other parties and amendment of pleadings (D.I. 19) construed by the Court as a motion to amend. Local Rule 15.1 provides that a party who moves to amend a pleading shall attach to the motion: (1) the proposed pleading as amended, complete with a handwritten or electronic signature; and (2) a form of the amended pleading which indicates in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or striking through materials to be deleted and underlining materials to be added. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court's Local Rule. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice to renew.
2. Defendant moves to compel responses to discovery served upon Plaintiff on July 25, 2018. (D.I. 22) When Plaintiff did not timely respond to the discovery, Defendant sent her a letter on September 5, 2018, regarding the overdue discovery responses and advised Plaintiff that if she had not filed responses by September 12, 2018, it would file a motion to compel. (Id.) Plaintiff did not respond by the deadline, and Defendant filed its motion the next day. Plaintiff did not file response to the motion. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to compel.
3. The court docket indicates that on September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document titled "discovery of production of documents pertaining to medical of personal & employment; licensing & testing; charges filed (Federal & State); and job listing of jobs applied for & denied." (D.I. 24) It is not clear if this filing is intended as a response to Defendant's discovery or if Plaintiff filed this as a discovery request seeking responses from Defendant. Regardless, Plaintiff is obligated to respond to Defendant's discovery requests and shall do so by the deadline set forth above.
