Babaesu Bey v. CO1 Shay Holt, et al.

Summary

The memorandum addresses multiple discovery-related motions, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and related requests for extensions in a prisoner civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court grants Defendants leave to file their response to an order to show cause nunc pro tunc, awards Plaintiff $7.65 for reasonable expenses associated with his first motion to compel, denies expenses for his second motion to compel, and reopens discovery for sixty days. The court also denies Defendants’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice and establishes further deadlines.

Holdings

1. A party may be permitted to file a late response nunc pro tunc when the delay is brief, the opposing party suffers no material prejudice, and denying relief would unfairly prejudice the late-filing party.
2. Under Rule 37(a)(5)(A), a prevailing movant is entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in making a motion to compel when the movant attempted in good faith to obtain discovery without court action, the opposing party's failure was not substantially justified, and no circumstances make an award unjust.
3. A party is not entitled to expenses under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) for a motion to compel when the party did not attempt in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action and did not provide the required certification.
4. A motion to compel discovery may be denied when it lacks the certification that the movant attempted in good faith to confer with the opposing party before seeking court intervention.
5. Under Local Rule 7.5, a motion may be deemed withdrawn when the filing party does not file a supporting brief within fourteen days.
6. A court may reopen discovery and modify a scheduling order under Rule 16(b)(4) when the moving party demonstrates good cause, including diligence, lack of undue prejudice, and circumstances warranting additional discovery.
7. A motion for summary judgment may be denied without prejudice when discovery is reopened and the parties have not completed the additional discovery relevant to dispositive motions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants should be permitted to file their response to the court's order to show cause nunc pro tunc.
2. Whether Bey was entitled to reasonable expenses incurred in filing his first and second motions to compel discovery.
3. Whether Bey's third motion to compel should be denied for failure to certify a good-faith conference.
4. Whether Bey's fourth motion to compel should be deemed withdrawn for failure to file a supporting brief.
5. Whether good cause existed to reopen discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4).
6. Whether Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be resolved before the reopened discovery period concluded.

Disposition

other