Smith v. Argyle et al, No. 2:2010cv01268 - Document 201 (D. Utah 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 198 Motion to Compel. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 6/10/13. (jmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION GREGORY SMITH, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION v. Case No. 2:10-cv-01268-CW-DBP SCOTT SCHRYER, et al., District Judge Clark Waddoups Defendants. I. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead INTRODUCTION This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket No. 198.) Plaintiff is Gregory Smith. Defendants relevant here are all Defendants except Paul Mangelson, Per Skoldin, and Kenilworth Point. The Court considers Plaintiff s motion to compel. (Id.) For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff s motion. II. PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO COMPEL In his opposition to Defendants motion to quash (Dkt. No. 188), Plaintiff includes a motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 192 at 7.) Should this Court grant Defendants motion to quash, Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants to fully respond to previous interrogatories and document production requests. (Id.) These previous discovery requests cover documents that Plaintiff obtained through the nonparty subpoenas Defendants seek to quash. (Id. at 8.) Initially, this Court notes that Plaintiff violated DUCivR 7-1(b)(1)(A), which prohibits parties from including motions in a response or reply memorandum. Moreover, Defendants Page 1 of 2 correctly note Plaintiff violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and DUCivR 37-1(a) because he failed to meet and confer with Defendants prior to filing this motion to compel, and failed to include any meet and confer certification with the motion. (Dkt. No. 195 at 3-4.) Defendants also point out that Plaintiff s motion to compel seeks fact discovery well after the May 1, 2013 fact discovery deadline. (Id. at 4.) III. ORDERS Due to the procedural defects in Plaintiff s motion to compel discussed above, the Court DENIES the motion. (Dkt. No. 198.) Dated this 10th day of June, 2013. By the Court: Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge Page 2 of 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.
