You're viewing Docket Item 23 from the case United States of America v. Limanni et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-00114-JD Document 23 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Civil No. 12-cv-114-JD

Charles Limanni, et al.

O R D E R

The United States brought suit against Charles Limanni,

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7403, to enforce federal tax

liens on his property in Barrington, New Hampshire. The Town of

Barrington, Linda Limanni, and Artella E. Chase are also named in

the suit as potentially interested parties. Charles Limanni is

proceeding pro se and filed a “motion for discovery.” The

government objects to the motion.

Discussion

Charles Limanni filed a “motion for discovery,” requesting

that the court order the government to produce any documents in

its possession relating to the case and to furnish him with all

information that it intends to introduce at trial. The

government objects, arguing that the discovery period as set

forth in the parties’ case management plan and extended by the

court has passed, and that Limanni did not seek any discovery

during that period. The government further argues that if it is

Case 1:12-cv-00114-JD Document 23 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 4

forced to respond to Limanni’s document requests then the

response date would be close to the deadline for the submission

of final pretrial statements, which would place an undue burden

on the government.

“[D]iscovery [requests] must be served upon a party so that

the receiving party has enough time to respond, as provided for

in the Federal Rules, otherwise, the discovery requests are

untimely.” Drahuse v. Fed. Home Loan. Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL

4088170, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 14, 2011). In other words,

“when a scheduling order establishes a deadline for ‘completion

of discovery,’ it requires more than simply filing discovery

requests prior to the deadline. Rather, it requires that parties

seeking discovery file their requests sufficiently in advance of

the deadline, such that the responses are due by the deadline for

completion of discovery.” Bailey v. Komatsu Forklift U.S.A.,

Inc., 2008 WL 2674886, at *3 (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2008); see also

Gargano v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 494 Fed. Appx. 98, 101 (1st Cir.

2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment where interrogatories

and deposition notices “called for action after the discovery

deadline”).

The case management plan agreed to by the parties and

approved by the court provided a discovery deadline of April 30,

2013. The court subsequently granted the government’s motion to

2

Case 1:12-cv-00114-JD Document 23 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 4

extend the discovery deadline until July 2, 2013. Limanni did

not serve the government with document requests and instead filed

the motion which is the subject of this order on July 2, 2013.

If Limanni’s motion were considered a request for production

of documents under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, it would

be untimely because the government’s response would not be due

until thirty days from the date the motion was served, which is

after the discovery deadline.1 The government notes, however,

that “the motion could be viewed as a request for an enlargement

of time to serve document requests seeking the materials

identified in the motion.” The government does not appear to

object to that request, but asks that if the court grants such

relief, the September 6, 2013, final pretrial conference should

be rescheduled. The government suggests an extension of the

discovery deadline until August 31, 2013.

In light of Limanni’s pro se status and the government’s

position, Limanni’s motion is construed as a request for an

enlargement of time to serve document requests seeking the

1As the government notes, Limanni’s motion cannot be
considered a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37 because “[a] plaintiff need to first serve his
discovery demands before he can move to compel their answer.”
Fox v. Poole, 2007 WL 837117, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2007); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).

3

Case 1:12-cv-00114-JD Document 23 Filed 07/30/13 Page 4 of 4

materials identified in the motion. The discovery deadline is

extended as proposed by the government. The final pretrial

conference scheduled for September 6, 2013, the related

deadlines, and the trial will be rescheduled.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Limanni’s motion for an

enlargement of time to serve document requests (document no. 20)

is granted. The discovery deadline is extended until August 31,

2013. The final pretrial conference scheduled for September 6,

2013, the related deadlines, and the trial will be rescheduled.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge

July 30, 2013

cc: Thomas P. Cole, Esquire
Charles Limanni, pro se
Linda Limanni, pro se
Steven M. Whitley, Esquire

4