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)

Download PDF
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

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?