Emerson v. Corizon Health Services

          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 ...