Thompson v. Arpaio

Filing 57

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's "Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery" (Doc. 54 ). (See document for complete details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 6/1/18. (SLQ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Bobby S Thompson,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-03902-PHX-JAT (ESW)

Joseph M Arpaio, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Bobby S. Thompson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison,

17

Whetstone Unit, in Tucson, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Second Amended

18

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 31). The Court ordered Defendants

19

Maricopa County to answer Count One of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant

20

DO B2230 to answer the retaliation claim in Count Two of the Second Amended

21

Complaint that is based on DO B2230’s alleged issuance of a Disciplinary Report after

22

Plaintiff submitted a grievance, and Defendant DO B2584 to answer Count Three of the

23

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 33). Defendants filed their Answer on February 20,

24

2018. The Court issued its Scheduling Order (Doc. 38) and discovery is ongoing.

25

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling

26

Discovery” (Doc. 54). Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to answer fully

27

interrogatories, produce documents, and pay Plaintiff $500 in expenses for obtaining the

28

order. As Defendants note in their “Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For

1

An Order Compelling Discovery [Doc. 54]” (Doc. 55), Plaintiff failed to comply with the

2

Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 38 at 3) and LRCiv 7.2(j) prior to filing his motion

3

regarding discovery matters. In addition, Defendants indicate that they have responded to

4

all Plaintiff’s discovery requests in a timely manner, rendering the issues raised by

5

Plaintiff moot. Plaintiff did not file a reply to Defendants’ Response.

6

The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to attempt to resolve the discovery dispute

7

through personal consultation and sincere efforts as required by the Court’s Order (Doc.

8

38 at 3) and LRCiv 7.2 (j). The Court further finds that the issues raised by Plaintiff are

9

moot as Defendants have timely produced all the discovery requested by Plaintiff.

10

For the reasons set forth herein,

11

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling

12
13

Discovery” (Doc. 54).
Dated this 1st day of June, 2018.

14
15
16

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-