Williams v. Harmon et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 7/21/09. (bkp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DAVID WILLIAMS, ADC #78730 V. GREG HARMON, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, et al. ORDE R Plaintiff, who is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this 1983 action, has filed a Request for Production of Documents See docket entry #30. Discovery requests and responses are not to be filed with the Court. Instead, they should be mailed directly to the opposing counsel, along with a certificate of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). The Court is currently in the process of serving Defendants. Once they have filed their Answer or other responsive pleading, Plaintiff should mail his discovery requests directly to Defendants' attorney. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Compel asking the Court to require Defendants to produce the full names of and/or last known private mailing addresses for Defendants Evans, Franklin, DeCoursey, Stewart, Foreman, and Parker. See docket entry #31. On July 13, 2009, the Court entered an Ordering directing the U.S. Marshals to serve Defendants Evans, Franklin, DeCoursey, and Stewart at their last known private addresses, which have been filed under seal. See docket entry #28. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is moot as to these four Defendants. In the July 13, 2009 Order, the Court also gave Plaintiff sixty days to use the discovery process to ascertain the full names of and service addresses for Defendants Foreman and Parker. Id. Plaintiff has not given defense counsel an opportunity to provide him with that information. Thus, 2:09CV00044 WRW/JTR DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF his Motion to Compel is premature in regard to these two Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34 (providing that a party has thirty days to respond to interrogatories or requests for production); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (providing that a party may file a motion to compel if the opposing party fails to timely respond to a discovery request) (emphasis added); Local Rule 7.2(g) (providing that a motion to compel must include a statement "by the moving party that the parties have conferred in good faith on the specific issue or issues in dispute and that they are not able to resolve their disagreements without the intervention of the Court"). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (docket entry #31) is DENIED. Dated this 21st day of July, 2009. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

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?