SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant City of Memphis, Tennessee's (the "City") combined Motion to Stay and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff Brandon Boddy responded on February 24, 2020. (ECF No. 35.) Defendant Officers D. Kinsler and W. Carter (the "Officers") have not filed any memoranda or motions with the Court addressing the City's Motion or Boddy's response.
For the following reasons, the City's Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The City's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
On March 25, 2019, Boddy filed this action against the City and the Officers alleging violations of state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to train. (ECF No. 1.) On October 28, 2019, the City filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 32.) On February 5, 2020, Boddy filed a response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 33.)
On February 11, 2020, the City filed its Motion to Stay and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 34.) On February 24, 2020, Boddy responded to the City's Motion to Stay and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 35.)
"A stay of discovery for any reason is a matter ordinarily
committed to the sound discretion of the trial court."
Granting or denying a motion to strike is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
"District courts have broad discretion in interpreting, applying, and determining the requirements of their own local rules."
The City moves to stay discovery and compliance with the deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order, ECF No. 27, pending the Court's resolution of the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 34 at 1.) The Officers do not oppose the City's Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 34 at 4 n.2.) In his response to the City's Motion to Stay and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Boddy does not address the City's request to stay the case. His arguments were directed only at the motion to strike portion of the City's Motion to Stay and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response.
The City moves to strike Boddy's response to its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 34.) The City filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on October 28, 2019. (ECF No. 32.) Under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the "Local Rules"), Boddy had 28 days to respond. LR 12.1(b). Boddy filed his response 72 days late, on February 5, 2020. (ECF No. 33.)
When a filing deadline has passed, a court "may, for good cause, extend the time," but only "on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Boddy filed no motion to extend the time.
In his response to the City's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion to Strike"), Boddy does not explain his delay, but argues that the Court does not have the authority to strike his response because his response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is not "material that is contained in the pleadings;" the City's Motion to Strike was filed after Boddy filed a response to the City's Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings; and the City did not suffer prejudice from the delayed filing. (ECF No. 35 at 1-2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and
As discussed
For the foregoing reasons, the City's Motion to Stay is GRANTED. Discovery and the Scheduling Order's deadlines are STAYED pending the Court's resolution of the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The City's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
So ordered.