Tillery v. Kelley et al
ORDER denying 29 Motion for Clarification. Denying without prejudice 30 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/27/2016. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WENDY LYNNE KELLEY, in her
individual and official capacity as the
Director of the Arkansas Department of
Correction; DEXTER L PAYNE, in his
individual and official capacity as Deputy
Director of the ADC; STEPHEN D WILLIAMS
in his individual and official capacity as Warden
of the North Central Unit of the ADC; and
BILLY W INMAN, in his individual and official
capacity as Deputy Warden of the North Central
Unit of the ADC
1. Tillery' s motion for clarification actually seeks reconsideration on the
protective order/contact/transfer issues that the Court has previously
addressed several times. The Court again notes the following: Tillery is not
her husband's lawyer; he is not a party to this case, and has not sought to
become a party; there has been no showing that ADC is harassing him based
on this case or interfering with his access to the Court; the Court has granted
Tillery a post-deposition meeting in October with her husband for trial
preparation; and Tillery still h as periodic email and m ail contact with her
husband. The record has not materially changed. The motion to clarify and
reconsider is therefore denied.
2. Tillery' s motion to compel is denied without prejudice. She must
follow the Court's procedure specified in the Final Scheduling Order, NQ 27
at 2, for bringing discovery disputes to the Court for decision. Among other
things, that Order states: "Do not file motions to compel." Ibid. This
direction is clear and unequivocal.
procedure, NQ 30 at
Tillery acknowledges the Court's
13, but has not followed it. The Court cautions her
about complying with all the Court's orders.
NQ 29, denied. NQ 30, denied without prejudice.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?