Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_17-cv-00014/USCOURTS-azd-4_17-cv-00014-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

JD Merrick, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Linderman, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-17-00014-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

On November 19, 2018, this Court ruled on all the pending discovery disputes which 

began about 15 days prior to the end of the then existing deadline, July 5, 2018, for 

completing discovery in this case. After allowing full briefing of all the pending discovery 

issues, the Court resolved them and allowed an extension of 60 days for the parties to 

complete the discovery being compelled by the Court’s Order. (Order (Doc. 209)). 

The Court ordered that there would be no further extensions of time for any 

discovery except that allowed pursuant to the Order. Id. at 10. The Court warned the 

parties that sanctions might result for any failure to comply with the Court’s Order 

requiring the prompt completion of the so ordered discovery. Id. The Court necessarily 

also extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions by 90 days or to: February 19, 

2019. Id. 

On February 1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enlarge the Dispositive Motions 

Deadline, (Motion (Doc. 215) which is essentially a request for an extension of time for 

discovery. He files a Motion for Telephonic Hearing and for Sanctions because the 

Case 4:17-cv-00014-DCB Document 220 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants allegedly failed to comply with the discovery directives issued by the Court on 

November 19, 2018. He essentially challenges the adequacy of the Defendants’ discovery 

responses. (Motion (Doc. 214)). 

Defendants respond that they do not object to the extension of the dispositive motion 

deadline, “albeit for reasons different from those he set forth in his Motion.” (Response 

(Doc. 218)). Defendants complain that the Plaintiff’s discovery responses were 

inadequate, and an extension of time will allow them to correspond with Merrick about 

discovery issues. They complain that he refused to produce any documents with his 

discovery responses and merely directed them to look elsewhere in the record. This made 

it difficult to review of his interrogatory responses. Like the Plaintiff, the Defendants 

essentially challenge the adequacy of Merrick’s discovery responses. 

 Both parties inform the Court that Counts One and Seven, dealing with the “kosher 

diet,” might be settled. Apparently, Plaintiff made an offer of settlement and has been 

waiting for Defendants to send him a draft settlement agreement since around December 

14, 2018. (Motion (Doc. 214) at 4.) Apparently, Defendants thought the settlement 

agreement was sent on December 21st but now know Plaintiff did not receive it. Defendants 

sent it again on February 6, 2019. Because correspondence between the parties is done by 

mail the Defendants report that it may take “a number of weeks” for the parties to exchange 

drafts of the settlement agreement, but that the settlement language should be resolved 

within 30 days. Both sides acknowledge that if settlement is reached on Counts One and 

Seven, it will not be necessary to include them in upcoming dispositive motions. 

Defendants suggest a 60-day extension of time for the filing of dispositive motions 

and accuse the Plaintiff of thinly veiling another Motion to Compel as a Motion for 

Sanctions in violation of the Court order that there should be no further motions to compel. 

The substance of the Court’s preclusion was “no further discovery,” except for discovery 

necessary pursuant to the November 19, 2018, Order. Sanctions would in fact be 

appropriate if either party failed to provide the other with the discovery compelled by the 

Court. The Court notes that the 60 days allowed for the parties to complete the compelled 

Case 4:17-cv-00014-DCB Document 220 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

discovery ended on January 19, 2019. Both parties’ complaints about the other’s responses 

to the compelled discovery are untimely: Plaintiff’s motions were filed on February 1, 

2019,1

 and Defendants filed responses on February 15, 2019, raising their assertions. The 

Court denies any further discovery but will extend the deadline for filing dispositive 

motions for 60 days to allow settlement of Counts One and Seven to be finalized. There 

shall be no further extensions of time for filing dispositive motions. 

Because discovery is closed, the Court has only cursorily reviewed the parties’ 

complaints against each other. Plaintiff is by and large dissatisfied with or disagrees with 

Defendants’ responses. Defendants have corrected the “oversight” made by counsel in 

failing to provide Plaintiff with copies of Defendants’ discovery responses. See Frame’s 

Amended Answers (Doc. 216); Linderman’s Supp. Answers (Doc. 217-3); Ryan’s Supp. 

Answers (Doc. 219). The 60-day extension of time provides ample time for Plaintiff to 

review this discovery for purposes of drafting his dispositive motion. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that discovery is closed; there shall be no further discovery in 

this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Hearing or Conference (Doc. 

214) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 215) 

is DENIED IN PART for any further discovery and GRANTED IN PART for 60 days or 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 

1

 Applying the mailbox rule, the Plaintiff’s filings were signed and certified January 29 and 30, 2019 and are, accordingly, untimely. 

Case 4:17-cv-00014-DCB Document 220 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

by April 25, 2019, for the parties to file any dispositive motions. THERE SHALL 

BE NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. 

 Dated this 22nd day of February, 2019. 

Case 4:17-cv-00014-DCB Document 220 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 4