Macklin v. F M C Transport Incorporated

Filing 72

ORDER denying 68 motion to compel without prejudice and providing Mr. Macklin 10 days to respond to FMC Transport's pending 63 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/28/2014. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
DENNIS MACKLIN
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:11-cv-00900-KGB

FMC TRANSPORT, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Dennis Macklin’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 68). Mr.
Macklin requests that the Court direct defendant FMC Transport, Inc., to produce “complete”
responses to interrogatory numbers 4, 6, 12, and 13; request for production of documents
numbers 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18; and a supplemental request for production of documents.
The Court denies Mr. Macklin’s motion to compel for the following reasons. First, Mr.
Macklin’s motion is untimely. The Court’s First Amended Final Scheduling Order states,
Discovery should be completed no later than September 2, 2014. The parties
may conduct discovery beyond this date, if all parties are in agreement to do so.
The Court, however, will not resolve any disputes in the course of this extended
discovery. All discovery requests and motions must be filed sufficiently in
advance of the discovery deadline set forth in this Order to allow for a timely
response. . . .
(Dkt. No. 47). Although the Court subsequently gave the parties until September 30, 2014, to
file “all motions, except motions in limine” (Dkt. No. 62), Mr. Macklin did not file his motion to
compel until October 7, 2014.

Further, based on the information before this Court, Mr.

Macklin’s discovery disputes are not new, as they arose before the end of the discovery period.
Second, except as to the supplemental request for production of documents, Mr. Macklin
makes no arguments as to why FMC Transport’s responses or objections to the specific
interrogatories and requests for production are insufficient or improper. The Court has reviewed
the requests and FMC Transport’s objections and responses. The basis for Mr. Macklin’s motion

to compel regarding these interrogatories and requests is not readily apparent to the Court, and
without more from Mr. Macklin the Court is not inclined to speculate as to why Mr. Macklin
finds the objections and responses deficient. As for the supplemental request for production of
documents, Mr. Macklin argues that FMC Transport never responded, but FMC Transport
provides evidence that it did respond (Dkt. No. 71-4).
For these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice Mr. Macklin’s motion to compel.
Further, because the basis for Mr. Macklin’s motion to compel is not readily apparent from the
face of the motion, the Court declines to grant Mr. Macklin a hearing on his motion to compel.
Granting a hearing based on Mr. Macklin’s motion to compel would deny FMC Transport the
opportunity to review and respond meaningfully to any arguments Mr. Macklin would make at
the hearing. Pursuant to this Court’s prior order, Mr. Macklin has ten days to respond to FMC
Transport’s pending motion for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED this the 28th day of October, 2014.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2