Franklin v. Norris et al
ORDER denying 56 Motion to Compel without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 12/7/10. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHRIS FRANKLIN, ADC #800095 v. LARRY NORRIS, et al. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 56). Defendants filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. No. 57). In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce unanswered interrogatories, requested on September 3, 2010, for inmate and other witnesses listed for the April 11, 2011 Evidentiary Hearing. In their Response, Defendants state they have responded to all Plaintiff's discovery requests directed to the parties of this action, and have not received any discovery requests dated September 3, 2010. On September 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a witness list and request for service, together with a request for inmate witnesses, all to be produced at the April 11, 2011 Hearing (Doc. Nos. 53, 54). These requests were directed to this Court, and not to the Defendants. The Court is unclear whether Plaintiff's present Motion refers to those witness requests and if so, what he seeks from the Defendants. Therefore, at this time, the Court finds Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be denied, in light of Defendants' Response that they have responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice. 5:09-cv-00293-JMM-JTK DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of December, 2010.
______________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY 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?