Larson v. Lake

Background

The court considered the plaintiffs’ Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. The plaintiffs had made several earlier requests for counsel, all of which had been denied. They argued that counsel was needed to investigate facts, conduct considerable discovery, address conflicting witness testimony, and handle complex legal issues. They also cited health issues and limited access to a law library and legal materials.

As part of their reply supporting appointment of counsel, the plaintiffs filed a separate motion asking the court to reopen discovery and change the pretrial scheduling order. They claimed that the defendants had refused to answer discovery requests because the requests were served too late, even though the plaintiffs allegedly served them before the November 1, 2018 discovery deadline.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that people representing themselves in civil cases generally have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel. Under the applicable statute, a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but the court generally cannot require an unwilling lawyer to take a civil case. In deciding whether to request counsel, courts consider factors such as the factual and legal complexity of the case, conflicting testimony, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate facts and present claims.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for assistance with discovery. It stated that civil plaintiffs are not entitled to affirmative assistance from the court in litigating their claims, including conducting discovery. It also noted that discovery had already closed, making counsel’s assistance with discovery mostly moot.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), which permits a scheduling order to be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court said the plaintiffs had more than eight months to conduct discovery and apparently waited too long to serve written discovery. It found no good cause to extend the deadline. The court also stated that discovery requests generally must be served early enough for the responding party’s response period to end by the discovery cutoff. If the plaintiffs had served the disputed requests in time, the court said they could file a motion to compel responses that identified the service date.

The court further found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated an ability to seek relief and litigate the case, including through their prior motions and legal citations. It found no unusual or extraordinary impediment, apart from the plaintiffs’ lack of diligence concerning the scheduling order, that justified requesting counsel.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that the plaintiffs’ Motion for the Appointment of Counsel was DENIED. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Discovery and to Change the Pretrial Scheduling Order was DENIED.