WILLIE RANDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. JOHN BALDWIN et al., Defendant Case No. 16-2321 United States District Court, C.D. Illinois December 10, 2018 Long, Eric I., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This case is before the Court on the Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (#64) filed by pro se Plaintiff Willie Randolph (“Plaintiff”). Defendants John Baldwin, Victor P. Calloway, James DePratt, Adam P. Monreal, and Melissa Robbins (“Defendants”) filed a Response (#68) in opposition. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (#64) is GRANTED. I. Background Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 14, 2016. The Complaint brings claims under 42 USC § 1983, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's alleged prolonged detention. On March 14, 2017, the Court entered a Scheduling Order (#28), setting the discovery deadline to November 15, 2017. At that time, the case was set for trial in April 2018. On January 17, 2018, the Court moved the trial to October 2018. On September 19, 2018, Defendants moved to file a Motion for Summary Judgment after the deadline for dispositive motions. The Court granted the Motion and rescheduled the trial to February 26, 2019. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on September 19, 2018, and Plaintiff responded on October 15, 2018. Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion on October 24, 2018. This case remains set for trial in February 2019. At the time Plaintiff filed his Motion, discovery had been closed for eleven months. Plaintiff's Motion asks the Court to compel six items related to his parole: 1) a signed copy of the “parole plans” dated May 24, 2013 and after; 2) the name, badge number, and office address of the parole agent assigned to Plaintiff, dated May 24, 2013 and after; 3) the name, badge number, and office address of that parole agent's supervisor, dated May 24, 2013 and after; 4) the start and end dates of Plaintiff's parole, dated after May 24, 2013; 5) a signed copy of the conditions of release order from the Prisoner's Review Board, dated after May 24, 2013; and 6) copies of all relevant documents dated March 16, 2016 that are in Defendant's possession showing that the Illinois Department of Corrections had “legal authority” to keep Plaintiff in their custody for 183 days. Defendants' Response asks the Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion for two reasons: the requests are untimely as discovery is closed and Defendants have provided Plaintiff with all documents of which they are aware regarding his parole.[1] II. Legal Standard Rule 34 provides that a party may request, among other things, the production of documents that “constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)” and are in the possession, custody, or control of another party. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). Rule 26(b) defines the scope of discovery: *2 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “[D]istrict courts may deny motions as untimely due to unexplained or undue delay or when the late motion will require an extension of the discovery period.” Reid v. Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America, 2012 WL 5995752 (N.D. Ill. 2012). III. Analysis Defendants note that discovery in this case closed on November 15, 2017, nearly one year before Plaintiff filed this Motion. Plaintiff does not ask the Court to extend the discovery deadline. Plaintiff's request is certainly untimely as it falls outside the time period set for discovery. But, as the Court allows pro se plaintiffs wide latitude in the handling of their lawsuits, the Court will waive the untimely nature of the Motion in this sole instance. Moore v. Godinez, 2010 WL 3718599 (N.D. Ill. Sept 10, 2010). The Rules require Defendants to turn over relevant documents that are in their possession, custody, or control. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1). Defendants' Response states that they “have provided Plaintiff with all documents they are aware of regarding his parole” and have provided Plaintiff “with all documents they know to exist regarding his parole paperwork.” Being aware or knowing of the existence of a document is the not the standard under Rule 34. Instead, the Rules require that Defendants certify that they have produced any responsive items in their possession, custody, or control. “A party has control or custody of a document or thing when he has the legal right to obtain the document, even though in fact he has no copy.” McBryar v. International Union of Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers, 160 F.R.D. 691, 695 (7th Cir. 1993). Defendants' Response does not adequately assure the Court that Defendants have produced all responsive documents they have the legal right to obtain. The Court orders Defendants to certify whether or not they have produced all responsive items in their possession, custody, or control. If additional responsive documents exist, those documents should be produced within 21 days. IV. Conclusion For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (#64) is GRANTED. Defendants are directed to certify that they have fully complied with all discovery or produce responsive documents and information by the close of business on January 2, 2019. No additional discovery will be allowed. ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2018. Footnotes [1] Defendants also note that Plaintiff's Motion appears to be a discovery request that should not have been filed with the Court. Defendants also note however that Plaintiff previously sent a discovery request for these documents to Defendants. Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court construes Plaintiff's pleading liberally as a motion.