Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ____________________________________ ) KEITH NIEMIC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 11-10863-LTS ) HAROLD CLARKE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) ORDER January 18, 2013 SOROKIN, C.M.J. On December 20, 2012, pro se plaintiff Keith Niemic filed motions seeking orders requiring the defendants to provide a supplemental answer to his complaint and amending the case schedule imposed during the Rule 16 conference on November 14, 2012. Doc. Nos. 49, 50. The motions were mailed to defense counsel in December, and were docketed by the Court on January 2, 2013, triggering electronic notices of their filing at that time. Id. To date, the defendants have not responded, and the time for doing so has expired. Niemic's motion seeking a more expansive responsive pleading from the defendants argues that the defendants should be required to answer the factual allegations set forth in his original Complaint, Doc. No. 2, and not just the More Definite Statement filed thereafter, Doc. No. 29. However, requiring the answer sought by Niemic would disregard a prior order of the Court (Tauro, J.), Doc. No. 25, in which it endorsed the defendants' view that the original complaint contained numerous lengthy, ambiguous allegations that violated Rule 8 and could not

reasonably be answered, see Doc. No. 23. Moreover, in addition to the factual allegations presented in Niemic's More Definite Statement, the defendants' answer addresses the party designations and claims for relief asserted in the original complaint, and also asserts affirmative defenses. See Doc. No. 34. Accordingly, Niemic's motion seeking a further responsive pleading from the defendants is DENIED. Nothing in this Order, however, precludes Niemic from seeking discovery related to facts beyond those identified in his More Definite Statement, as long as such matters are relevant to his claims and are otherwise discoverable. Niemic also seeks an order extending the deadlines for discovery. The defendants have not responded to his request. Therefore, it is ALLOWED as unopposed. The existing schedule is amended to add thirty (30) days to all deadlines as follows:

Download 26979.pdf

Massachusetts Law