The opinion of the court was delivered by: Williams, Magistrate Judge:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011, an in-court Motion Hearing was held on all three of Plaintiff Gregory Turley's ("Turley's") pending actions (Case Nos. 08-cv-007-SCW, 09-cv-0829-MJR, and the above-captioned action). The Court took up all seven (7) of the motions pending in this case. The Court heard extensive argument from the parties on the Motions to Compel and ruled on all of the pending motions as follows:
Motion for Leave to File Answer Instanter (Doc. 116)
Turley filed a Response (Doc. 118) to this motion raising a number of factual issues which, if they still remain, may be raised at trial. The Motion was GRANTED and Defendants were DIRECTED to file their Amended Answer, as proposed, by the end of the day on Wednesday, September 21, 2011.
Motion for Confirmation From the Clerk on What Date Defendant's [sic] "Consented to Magistrate Judge (Doc. 106)
In light of the Memorandum and Order entered by District Judge Reagan on July 22, 2011 (Doc. 110), finding that-based on the valid consents of all parties-this case was properly referred to the undersigned magistrate judge as of May 23,2011, this motion was found to be MOOT.
Motion to Stay Trial Practice Schedule (Doc. 104)
Pursuant to this Court's July 26, 2011 Order Canceling Deadlines, all deadlines in the original Scheduling Order were VACATED. A new amended Scheduling Order will be entered shortly, by separate Order. Accordingly, Defendants' request to stay deadlines also was found to be MOOT.
Emergency Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 93)
Turley reiterated that his request for counsel arises primarily from his concerns regarding: (1) his ongoing difficulty obtaining discovery, and (2) his lack of access to the law library because of his facility being on "lockdown." The Court noted that Turley is a seasoned litigator who has competently handled all three of his cases thus far. Further, his claims are not overly complex. The Court also noted that setting a new, more extended trial and discovery schedule in this case should alleviate many, if not all of, Turley's concerns. Accordingly, the Court DENIED Turley's request without prejudice to him refiling a similar motion at a later date. The Court advised Turley, however, that any future requests for counsel should include proof that he has, in fact, made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel on his own.
Defendants' Rule 37(d) Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 105)
Defendants filed this motion in response to Turley's failure to participate in his July 8, 2011. Turley objected to the deposition because he claims he received inadequate notice. Instead of preparing for his Deposition, Turley chose to prepare a stipulation regarding the Deposition which Defendants refused to sign. While the Court does not condone Turley's conduct, under the totality of the circumstances, it will not impose any sanctions against Turley at this time. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Sanctions was DENIED. However, the Court NOTIFIED Turley in open Court that his Deposition is now SET for Thursday, October 20, 2011. Failure to fully participate in his Deposition may result in sanctions, including his case being dismissed.
Motions to Compel (Docs. 94 & 96)
Turley's first Motion to Compel (Doc. 94) seeks an Order from this Court compelling the production of certain documents by Defendants. Specifically, this motion refers to a Request for Production of Documents that Turley submitted to Defendants in which he asks for 80 specific documents. In response, Defendants objected to 78 of Turley's requests. During the hearing the Court took up each individual request and Objection in turn. After thoroughly reviewing the requested materials the Court made all of its ...