Block v. PepsiCo Inc et al

Filing 39

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
WESTERN DIVISION
PRINCELLA BLOCK
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:13CV00346 JLH

PEPSICO, INC.; FRITO LAY, INC.;
HAROLD D. MCDONALD; and
WALLY POLLICH

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

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
to compel.
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