Christopher Robertson v. Justin Law, et al.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Christopher Robertson, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, LIMITED DISCOVERY v. Case No. 1:25-cv-00132-DBP Justin Law, et al., Defendants. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Plaintiff who is proceeding pro se, seeks to conduct limited discovery and a “Narrowly tailored extension of time to identity and serve the Jane Doe Defendant.”1 The court previously granted Plaintiff an extension of time to identify and serve the Jane Doe Defendant by April 15, 2026.2 On April 14, 2026, the day before that extension expired Plaintiff filed the current motion.

Rule 26(d) provides that a “party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), ….”3 A “party seeking … discovery in advance of a Rule 26(f) conference has the burden of showing good cause for the requested departure from usual discovery procedures.”4 Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish the requisite good cause for the requested discovery. Further, a review of the docket indicates this motion may be an attempt by Plaintiff to avoid dismissal of his case as there are two motions to dismiss filed by respective Defendants. Plaintiff’s request for discovery is DENIED.

1 ECF No. 21.

2 Order granting Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. 20.

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d).

4 Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Colo. 2003).

Finally, the court has already provided an extension of time to serve the Jane Doe Defendant. The court will provide an additional modest extension of time to serve this alleged Defendant on or before June 1, 2026.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

It is so ordered.

DATED this 19 May 2026.

Dust Pyad ° United Stafes Mapistrate Judge