Johnson v. Boyd et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying, at this time, 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff may refile the Motion if Defendants do not timely or fully respond to his requests for production. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/22/08. (jct)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION JONATHON B. JOHNSON ADC #140542 V. 3:08CV00084 SWW/JTR DEFENDANTS ORDE R Plaintiff, who is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this 1983 action, has filed a Motion to Compel, and Defendants have filed a Response thereto. See docket entries #26 and #31. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion will be denied, at this time. On August 26, 2008, Plaintiff sent Defendants thirty-four Requests for Production. See docket entry #26, attachments. On August 29, 2008, Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter stating: I am in receipt of your Requests for Production of Documents. Your requests do not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I am returning your requests to you and asking that you limit your requests to a total of 25 requests including subparts. Please re-propound your discovery requests pursuant to the rules. Thank you for your cooperation. Id., attachments at page 5. However, contrary to Defendants' assertion, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not limit the number of requests for production of documents. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 (containing no limit on the number of requests for production of documents); with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 (limiting a party to 25 written interrogatories). Without acknowledging their error, Defendants now assert that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is premature because they have until September 28, 2008, to answer his August 26, 2008 Requests for Production. See docket entry #31. The Court disagrees with this assertion as the August 29, PLAINTIFF LARRY ZANE BOYD, Administrator, Crittenden County Detention Center, et al. 2008 letter clearly indicated to Plaintiff that Defendants did not intend to respond to his Requests for Production. Nevertheless, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is now moot as Defendants have stated (in their Response to the Motion to Compel) that they intend to produce the requested documents by September 28, 2008, or to request an extension of time to do so. See docket entry #31. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel will be denied, at this time. Plaintiff may refile the Motion if Defendants do not timely or fully respond to his requests for production. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (docket entry #31) is DENIED, at this time. Dated this 22nd day of September, 2008. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?