Hurdsman et al v. Wright et al

Filing 41

ORDER that the Clerk shall alter the docket to reflect that Defendant "Richardson" is "Michael Richards"; Defendant "Boyett" is "Timothy Boyett"; and Defendant "Pilgrim" is "Christine Pilgrim". Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied 35 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 12/16/2015. (lej)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
RODNEY A. HURDSMAN
v.

PLAINTIFFS
4:15CV00090-KGB-JJV

RODNEY WRIGHT, Sheriff,
Saline County; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 35). Therein,
he argues Defendants have failed to adequately answer several of his discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 3.)
Defendants have responded (Doc. No. 37) and the Motion is ripe for disposition.
First, Defendants argue the Motion should be denied because Plaintiff did not confer in good
faith before filing it. For his part, Plaintiff argues he attempted to reach Defendants’ counsel by
telephone on the third and fourth days of December. (Doc. No. 35 at ¶ 4.) Defendants’ counsel
denies receiving those calls. (Doc. No. 37 at 4.) Given this dispute, I will consider the merits of
Plaintiff’s Motion.

In the future Plaintiff should undertake to actually communicate with

Defendants’ counsel before filing a motion to compel.
Plaintiff argues some of Defendants’ responses to his interrogatories were “evasive and
incomplete” and many of the interrogatories were not answered at all. (Doc. No. 35 at ¶ 3.) He has
failed to specifically identify which interrogatory responses were inadequate, however. Absent this
information, I cannot weigh the validity of Defendants’ objections. The only specific issue Plaintiff
raises is that Defendants have not produced “employment files, and any, and all, other documents”
for Defendants Pilgrim, Richards, and Boyett.1 (Id.) Defendants have provided evidence showing
1

The docket currently lists incomplete or incorrect names for each of these Defendants. The
Clerk of Court shall be directed to alter it to reflect their proper names.
1

that the personnel files for each of these Defendants were sent to Plaintiff on November 30, 2015.
(Doc. No. 37-5.) Defendants’ counsel has also expressed a willingness to resend any documents
Plaintiff has not received. (Doc. No. 37-6.) I therefore consider this matter resolved and Plaintiff’s
Motion will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Clerk of Court shall alter the docket to reflect that Defendant “Richardson” is

“Michael Richards”; Defendant “Boyett” is “Timothy Boyett”; and Defendant “Pilgrim” is “Christine
Pilgrim.”
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2015.

____________________________________
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2