Jones et al v. Hobbs et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 50 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 7/7/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION TYRONE JONES, ADC #92503, and AHMEEN MUMIT, ADC #95017 v. PLAINTIFFS 2:10-cv-00202-JMM-JTK RAY HOBBS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 50). Defendants filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 55). In their Motion, Plaintiffs state Defendants improperly objected to some of their discovery requests as irrelevant to their claims. Plaintiffs state the information requested is relevant to their claims regarding their classification in administrative segregation and the reviews provided to them. In their Response, Defendants state their objections to many of Plaintiffs’ requests were proper, and that despite indicating objections, they responded to almost all of the requests. Defendants also informed Plaintiffs that they are able to review their institutional jackets upon proper request. The Court has reviewed the copies of Plaintiffs’ requests and Defendants’ responses, and finds no improper objections by the Defendants. Even when objecting to many of the interrogatories propounded, Defendants provided responses to the Plaintiffs. See Doc. No. 55-1. It appears to the Court that Plaintiffs’ objections are with the type of answer provided, and not that Defendants failed to respond. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2011. ______________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY 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?