The opinion of the court was delivered by: Martin C. Carlson United States Magistrate Judge
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. Statement of Facts and of the Case
This is a civil rights action brought by a state inmate. In his complaint, Angel Muniz, who is proceeding pro se, has named a number of prison staff as Defendants, alleging that these staff violated his constitutional rights by employing excessive force against him when they subdued him during an April 9, 2008, affray in a prison psychiatric ward. (Doc. 1). This matter now comes before the Court on two discovery motions filed by the Plaintiff: a motion to compel discovery, filed by Muniz on October 8, 2010, (Doc. 33) and a motion to take the oral depositions of the Defendants, filed by Muniz on October 15, 2010. (Doc. 38).
With respect to these two discovery motions, at the outset we are compelled to note a series of procedural irregularities in these filings. First, both motions are clearly untimely. On May 28, 2010, we entered a case management order which directed all parties to complete discovery on or before September 30, 2010. After setting this September 30, 2010, deadline for discovery, we notified all parties in clear and precise terms that:
The following deadlines, described in greater detail throughout this Order, have been established for this case, and may not be modified by the parties. Motions to modify or extend the deadlines established here shall be made before expiration of the time limits has passed. All requests for extensions of discovery deadlines must be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the discovery period. Motions will be granted only on a showing of good cause.
Presented with the plain language of this order, no party sought to extend the discovery deadlines in this case. Therefore, despite this explicit guidance from the Court, we note Muniz's discovery motions reveal that the Plaintiff did not even commence his discovery prior to the expiration of this discovery deadline.
In addition, with respect to the motion to take the oral depositions of the Defendants filed by Muniz on October 15, 2010, (Doc. 38), we note that Muniz has violated the provisions of Local Rule 7.5 by failing to timely file a brief in support of this motion. Local Rule 7.5 prescribes the sanction for such a failure on Muniz's part, stating in part as follows:
LR 7.5 Submission of Briefs Supporting Motions.
Within fourteen (14) days after the filing of any motion, the party filing the motion shall file a brief in support of the motion. If the motion seeks a protective order, a supporting brief shall be filed with the motion. If a supporting brief is not filed within the time provided in this rule the motion shall be deemed to be withdrawn.
Notwithstanding the irregular and tardy nature of these motions, the Defendants have filed a response to Muniz's discovery motion (Doc. 33), which: first, notes that the much of the material sought by Muniz, such as photographs and videos, does not exist; and second, requests that ...