United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Eileen
S. Willett United States Magistrate Judge.
This
Order sets forth the Court's rulings on a number of
pending Motions (Docs. 57, 60, 87, 90, 91, 93, 96, 100).
I.
DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Provide Addresses Under
Seal” (Doc. 57) and “Motion to Order” (Doc.
96)
In July
2018, service was returned unexecuted as to Defendants Dr.
Lasac and Dr. Horwitz. (Docs. 78, 79). For good cause shown,
the Court will grant Plaintiff's “Motion to Provide
Addresses Under Seal” (Doc. 57) and will require
counsel for Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.
(“Corizon”) to file under seal the last known
addresses for Defendants Lasac and Horwitz.[1]
In
August 2018, service was returned unexecuted as to Defendant
Lavoy. (Doc. 92). For good cause shown, the Court will grant
Plaintiff's “Motion to Order” (Doc. 96) and
will require Defendant Corizon to file under seal the last
known address for Defendant Lavoy.
B.
Defendant Corizon's “Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Proffer of Cases” (Doc. 60)
In
their June 5, 2018 Motion (Doc. 60), Defendant Corizon has
moved to strike Plaintiff's May 7, 2018 filing captioned
as “Plaintiff's Proffer of Cases Where Defendants
and DOC Through Counsel Falsify/Conceal Evidence” (Doc.
51). For good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendant
Corizon's Motion (Doc. 60).
C.
Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Docs. 87, 88, 91)
On
April 12, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting
forth a procedure for resolving discovery disputes. (Doc. 44
at 3). In bold letters, the Court advised the parties that
the Court will not consider a motion regarding discovery
matters unless (i) the parties have attempted to resolve the
matter through personal consultation and sincere effort as
required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(j) and (ii) the
parties have participated in a discovery conference with the
Court. The Scheduling Order set forth the requirements for
filing a request for a discovery conference, and informed the
parties that a request that does not comply with those
requirements may be stricken. (Id.). Finally, the
Court advised the parties in bold letters that a discovery
motion that is filed in noncompliance with the requirements
set forth in the Scheduling Order may be stricken.
(Id.). Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Docs. 87,
88, 91) do not comply with the requirements set forth in the
Court's Scheduling Order. Accordingly, they will be
stricken.
D.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Abate Time First
Request” (Doc. 90)
Plaintiff
requests that the discovery deadline be extended to December
7, 2018. (Doc. 90). No. response has been filed and the time
to do so has passed. See LRCiv 7.2(i). The Court
will grant Plaintiff's “Motion to Abate Time First
Request” (Doc. 90) in part. The discovery deadline will
be extended to November 7, 2018. The dispositive motion
deadline will be extended to December 7, 2018.
E.
Plaintiff's “Motion to Disqualify Counsel Due to
Conflict” (Doc. 93)
In his
August 8, 2018 Motion, Plaintiff alleges that “the
lawyers for Corizon have a conflict in representing
...