Glaum v. Braun et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Joseph E. Glaum, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Colby Braun and Joseph Joyce, 	) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-146
)
Defendants. 	)
On January 14, 2026, the court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request to extend the
deadline for completing fact discovery until March 13, 2026. (Doc. No. 110).
On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Request for leave or stipulation to expand/extend time
for discovery.” (Doc. No. 111). Plaintiff states that Defendant has yet to respond to his October 13,
2025, discovery requests. Speculating that Defendants require more time to respond to his requests,
he asks the court to extend the fact discovery deadline until April 23, 2026. As an aside, Defendant
states that he “wishes to proceed with Interrogatories (Rule 33), Request for documents (Rule 34),
and Requests for admission (Rule 36), which he was holding off on completing because he wanted
to see what was produced through the October - December discovery order first.” (Id.).
The court is not presently inclined to further extend the discovery the deadline until April
23, 2026. 	First, Defendants have not requested additional time respond to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests. Second, there is nothing in the record to suggest that discovery cannot be completed by the
current deadline. Plaintiff’s request to extend the fact discovery deadlines (Doc. No. 111) is
therefore DENIED without prejudice.
In regard to Plaintiff’s stated desire to serve interrogatories, requests for production, and
1
Case 1:24-cv-00146-CRH Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 2

requests for admission on Defendants, the court simply notes that Plaintiff does not require its
permission to conduct discovery within the parameters established in the scheduling and discovery
order and by the existing deadlines. 	Should any issues regarding discovery arise, Plaintiff is
expected to strictly follow the instructions previously given by the court in its June 23, 2025, order
regarding resolution of discovery disputes. (Doc. No. 55). Plaintiff is also reminded that, although
he is proceeding pro se, he is bound by and must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
this district’s local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:24-cv-00146-CRH Document 113 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 2