Marshall v. McCain et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
CALVIN L. MARSHALL 	PLAINTIFF
ADC #090207
V. 	Case No. 2:22-CV-00135-LPR-BBM
KELLY MCCAIN,
Nurse Practitioner, EARU, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Some of the ADC Defendants—Anthony Jackson, Stephen Lane, and Valerie
Westbrook (hereafter, simply the “ADC Defendants”)1—move: to compel discovery
responses from Plaintiff Calvin L. Marshall; to extend the discovery and dispositive
motions deadlines; and for leave to depose Plaintiff. For the following reasons, the Motion
to Compel Discovery, (Doc. 72), is held in abeyance, and the Motion for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery and to Depose Plaintiff, (Doc. 73), is granted in part and denied in
part.
Motion to Compel. According to the ADC Defendants, Marshall failed to respond
to their First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. (Doc. 72 at
1). They sent a good faith letter to Marshall on August 27, 2025, (Doc. 72-1), but, to date,
they have not received Marshall’s discovery responses. (Doc. 72 at 1). The ADC
Defendants seek an order compelling Marshall to respond to their discovery responses by
November 10, 2025. Id. But, that does not give Marshall time to object or otherwise
1 Although Defendant Rory Griffin is represented by the same attorney as the other ADC
Defendants and has not been dismissed from this action, the recent ADC motions were not filed on his
behalf.
Case 2:22-cv-00135-LPR-BBM Document 75 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3

2
respond to the Motion, which he has a right to do. Local Rule 7.2(b). The Motion to Compel
will be held in abeyance until that time.
Marshall is directed to file a response to the ADC Defendants’ Motion to Compel
on or before November 10, 2025. Marshall is reminded that he is required to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see (Doc. 3 at 1), including the discovery provisions.
If Marshall fails to participate in discovery, he may ultimately be sanctioned. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2). Possible sanctions include the dismissal of this case. Id.
Motion for Extension of Time. The ADC Defendants state that they need Marshall’s
discovery responses to prepare for Marshall’s deposition. (Doc. 73). With the discovery
and dispositive motions deadlines quickly approaching, they seek a sixty-day extension of
time to complete discovery and file their motion for summary judgment. Id. at 2. The ADC
Defendants state that the request is not made for unnecessary or undue delay. Id. Yet, they
fail to explain why they waited so long to seek the Court’s intervention in the apparent
discovery dispute. Several weeks elapsed between Marshall’s alleged failure to respond to
the good faith letter, see (Doc. 72-1 at 1), and the Motion to Compel, (Doc. 72).
Accordingly, the request for extension is granted, in part. The Court grants a thirty-
day extension of the discovery deadline. Absent extraordinary circumstances, no further
extensions will be granted.
Finally, the ADC Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Depose Plaintiff is granted in
part. Leave to depose Marshall under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B) has
already been granted. (Doc. 69 at 1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4),
the ADC Defendants may conduct the deposition remotely, if necessary.
Case 2:22-cv-00135-LPR-BBM Document 75 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Marshall’s response to the ADC Defendants’ Motion to Compel, (Doc. 72),
is due on or before November 10, 2025.
2. 	The ADC Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Depose,
(Doc. 73), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. 	Discovery between Plaintiff Marshall and Defendants Jackson, Lane, and
Westbrook must be completed on or before December 10, 2025. For those parties,
dispositive motions on the merits are due on or before December 31, 2025.
4. 	Defendants Jackson, Lane, and Westbrook may depose Marshall by remote
means.
5. 	Discovery between all other parties remains due November 10, 2025, and
the dispositive motions deadline for all other parties is December 1, 2025. See (Doc. 69).
SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2025.
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-00135-LPR-BBM Document 75 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3