Lightfeather v. Officer Blue et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AUSTIN EDWARD LIGHTFEATHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER BLUE, in his individual
capacity; OFFICER JOHNSON, in his
individual capacity; OFFICER
THOMAS, in his individual capacity;
and SGT. NEEDMAN, in his
individual capacity;
Defendants.
8:22CV247
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before this Court on Defendants’ Motion to Extend
Progression Order deadlines (the “Motion to Extend”), Filing No. 69, as set
forth in the Court’s Order Setting Schedule for Progression of Case (the
“Progression Order”), Filing No. 50, and Defendants’ motion seeking an order
determining the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s discovery responses, including an
order finding the answers to Defendants’ requests for admissions insufficient,
deeming them admitted, or, alternatively, requiring supplemental responses
from Plaintiff, and an order compelling Plaintiff to fully respond to Defendants’
interrogatories and requests for production (hereinafter the “Motion to
Compel”), Filing No. 62.
As the Motion to Extend and the Motion to Compel are related, the Court
addresses them here together, and, for the reasons set forth below, the Motion
to Extend, Filing No. 69, shall be granted, in part, in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order. As the Motion to Compel, Filing No. 62, is currently
8:22-cv-00247-JMG-PRSE Doc # 70 Filed: 10/20/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
under review, the Court shall not issue a decision at this time. The Court shall
amend the Progression Order when the Motion to Compel is fully resolved.
In support of their Motion to Extend, Defendants argue that they mailed
a set of requests for admissions (“RFA”), interrogatories (“ROGS”), and
requests for production (“RFP”) to Plaintiff on June 30, 2025, to which Plaintiff
has not adequately responded. See Filing Nos. 63-1 & 63-2. Specifically,
Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s answers to the RFA were insufficient
and/or unresponsive1 and that Plaintiff failed to respond to the ROGS or RFP
in any fashion. See Filing Nos. 62 & 64. And, because Plaintiff failed to either
respond or respond adequately to any of the discovery propounded by
Defendants, Defendants’ Motion to Extend seeks to continue the discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines to allow this Court to address the Motion to
Compel, for Plaintiff to provide adequate responses to all discovery, and for
Defendants to review the answers. Filing No. 69.
Because the issues raised in the Motion to Extend depend upon a ruling
on the Motion to Compel, instead of extending only the discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines as requested, this Court shall suspend the
Progression Order deadlines in their entirety until the Motion to Compel is
resolved.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Extend,
Filing No. 69, is granted in part on the following terms:
1. The Progression Order, Filing No. 50, is stayed until the filing and
resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Compel.
1 Defendants believe Plaintiff’s responses were improperly filed with this Court at Filing No. 54 and
are Plaintiff’s attempt at responding to Defendants’ request for admissions. Filing No. 64 at 2.
8:22-cv-00247-JMG-PRSE Doc # 70 Filed: 10/20/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
2. The Final Pretrial conference before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline
M. DeLuca scheduled for February 3, 2026, at 10:30 A.M. is continued until
further order of the Court.
3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate all progression order deadlines,
and the Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for February 3, 2026, at 10:30
A.M.
4. The Court shall amend the Progression Order deadlines following
the resolution of the Motion to Compel, Filing No. 62, in a later Memorandum
and Order.
Dated this 20th day of October, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:22-cv-00247-JMG-PRSE Doc # 70 Filed: 10/20/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>