United States District Court for the District of Columbia
June 3, 2005.
ELIZABETH LIGHTFOOT et al., Plaintiffs,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN FACCIOLA, Magistrate Judge
Currently pending and ready for resolution is Defendants'
Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Request
for Production of Documents, Interrogatories, and Requests for
Admission [#240]. In light of the motion, the opposition, and
the entire public record herein, it is, hereby, ORDERED that
defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Defendants seek an enlargement of time until June 27, 2005 to
respond to plaintiffs' second request for production of
documents, interrogatories, and requests for admission. In
support of their request, defendants explain that former counsel
recently resigned and current counsel have not had sufficient
time to finalize the defendants' discovery responses. In
addition, defendants argue that the Office of Risk Management has
had inadequate time to assist defense counsel in completing the
discovery responses because it has been working to complete the
closed file project and verification of the addresses of class
members in order to comply with the Court's September 24, 2004 Order.
Before the instant motion was filed, plaintiffs had agreed, in
part, to an extension of time but requested that the government
provide plaintiffs, by June 3, 2005, with a proposed schedule for
discovery responses. Plaintiffs also asked that the government
engage in "rolling" responses and document productions.
Apparently, the government rejected this proposal and filed a
motion seeking a blanket extension of time until June 27, 2005.
Plaintiffs object to such an extension and request that the court
order defendants to provide prompt responses to the discovery
requests, along with all of their objections to all of the
discovery requests, by June 3, 2005.
Unfortunately, as plaintiffs point out, this case has been
plagued by the government's excuses and delay. However, because
June 3, 2005 is today and because defense counsel cannot "undo"
the situation in which they find themselves, this court finds
that it would be futile to enter the order proposed by
plaintiffs. At the same time, defendants must know that the
continual postponement of compliance with their legal and
discovery obligations must come to an end. Accordingly, this
court orders defendants to comply with the following schedule:
1. By June 7, 2005, defendants must provide
plaintiffs with all responses and documents that are
ready to be disclosed. Defendants must also propose a
schedule according to which they will produce the
remaining discovery responses on a rolling basis,
subject to the deadlines set forth below.
2. By June 13, 2005, defendants must provide
plaintiffs with any and all objections they will
lodge as to any of the plaintiffs' second request for
production of documents, interrogatories, and
requests for admission.
3. By June 27, 2005, defendants must complete their
responses to plaintiffs' second request for production of documents, interrogatories,
and requests for admission.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.