Poland v Ford et al

Filing 104

ORDER denying 99 Motion to Compel without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 12/20/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WAYNE FREDERICK POLAND,
ADC #145512
v.

PLAINTIFF

5:10-cv-00263-JLH-JTK

DONNY FORD, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 99). Defendants
filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 103).
In his Motion, Plaintiff states that Defendants did not comply with his request for daily logs
for the first and second shifts, and sent only a portion of the requested documents. Plaintiff also
states Defendants fails to respond to his request for a list of all jail employees during his period of
confinement at the Dallas County Jail.
In their Response, Defendants state they have complied with Plaintiff’s discovery requests
by providing him with his entire jail file and medical records. (See Doc. Nos. 103-1, 103-2, their
responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories.) Defendants note that although Plaintiff requested a list of
staff under Interrogatory No. 15, he did not identify the month or year at issue and also asked for
information relevant to his period of solitary confinement, which Defendants state did not occur.1
Defendants state they have provided Plaintiff with all records in their possession to the best of their
abilities.

1

Defendants also incorrectly construe Plaintiff’s November 18, 2011 filing as a Motion
currently pending before this Court. Plaintiff’s filing was docketed as a discovery request from
the Defendants. See Doc. No. 97.
1

Having reviewed the Motion and the Response, the Court finds that the Motion should be
denied at this time. If Plaintiff can identify specific, complete, requests to which he has not received
responses from Defendants, he may re-file a motion to compel. However, Plaintiff must be specific
about the information requested and why such information is relevant to this case. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 99) is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of December, 2011.

______________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2