Block v. PepsiCo Inc et al
ORDER denying 37 motion for discovery. Block is hereby warned that continued failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could result in dismissal of her claims. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 07/30/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
No. 4:13CV00346 JLH
PEPSICO, INC.; FRITO LAY, INC.;
HAROLD D. MCDONALD; and
Princella Block has filed a motion for discovery, which she says is filed pursuant to Rule
26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 26(f) prescribes a conference between the parties
in which a discovery plan must be instituted but is not, itself, a basis for a discovery motion. Rather,
discovery is conducted pursuant to the rules governing depositions, interrogatories, requests for
production of documents, and requests for admission. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30-36.
Block’s motion could be construed as a motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37(a), but she has never
requested any discovery from the defendants pursuant to Rules 30 through 36, so there is nothing
The defendants point out that Block has failed throughout this proceeding to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She is hereby warned that continued failure to comply could
result in dismissal of her claims.
The motion for discovery is DENIED. Document #37.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2014.
J. LEON HOLMES
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?