Renoir-Large et al v. Lane, No. 2:2011cv00023 - Document 133 (S.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 107 Motion to Compel and 108 Motion for admission to defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/28/11. (rew)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION GABRIELLE RENOIR-LARGE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-0023 Judge Marbley Magistrate Judge King NORMA DARWIN LANE, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, residents of Ohio proceeding without the assistance of counsel, allege that defendant, a North Carolina resident who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, harassed and threatened plaintiffs through various internet message boards. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiffs Interrogatories and to Produce Evidence, Doc. No. 107 ( Motion to Compel ) and Plaintiffs Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiffs Requests for Admission to Defendant , Doc. No. 108 ( Motion to Deem Admitted ). On March 16, 2011, the Court conducted a preliminary pretrial conference pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Following that conference, the Court issued an order directing, inter alia, that all discovery be completed by September 30, 2011. Preliminary Pretrial Order, Doc. No. 38, p. 2. In that order, the Court specifically advised the parties that the discovery completion date requires that discovery requests be made sufficiently in advance to permit timely response by that date. Id. The Court later reaffirmed that all non-expert discovery must be completed by September 30, 2011. Order, Doc. No. 80. On September 7, 2011, plaintiffs served interrogatories and requests for admission on defendant. Exhibit A, pp. 20-21,1 attached to Motion to Compel; Exhibit A, pp. 4-5, attached to Motion to Deem Admitted. However, as plaintiffs acknowledge in their current motions, defendant may have up until thirty days to respond to these discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Motion to Compel, p. 1; Motion to Deem Admitted, p. 1. The deadline for defendant s responses to these discovery requests was therefore October 7, 2011. Because this response deadline falls outside the established discovery deadline,2 defendant had no obligation to respond to plaintiffs belated discovery requests. See Preliminary Pretrial Order, p. 2. WHEREUPON, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiffs Interrogatories and to Produce Evidence, Doc. No. 107, and Plaintiffs Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiffs Requests for Admission to Defendant , Doc. No. 108, are DENIED. December 28, 2011 s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King United States Magistrate Judge 1 Although plaintiffs typed that they served these documents on September 2, 2011, id. at 20, their signatures on the certificate of service are dated September 7, 2011, id. at 21. 2 Plaintiffs never asked to extend the discovery deadline in this case. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.