Robinson v. Perkins et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part docket entry # 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel: (a) Granting in part, such that Defendant Perkins shall file, on or before September 13, 2011, his Answers to Plaintiff's July 3, 2011 Interrogatories; and (b) Denying in all other respects. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 08/30/2011. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ANDREW DOMINIC ROBINSON
ADC #652013
V.

PLAINTIFF

5:10CV00324 DPM/JTR

BRIAN PERKINS,
Sergeant, Varner Super Max Unit

DEFENDANT

ORDER
On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff, Andrew Dominic Robinson, filed a Motion to
Compel asserting that Defendant Brian Perkins failed to respond to his July 3, 2011
Interrogatories. See docket entry #17. As of the date of this Order, Defendant has not
filed a Response to that Motion, and the time for doing so has expired.1
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is granted, and Defendant will be given
fourteen days to file his Answers to Plaintiff’s July 3, 2011 Interrogatories. See Local
Rule 7.2(f) (providing that: “The failure to timely respond to any nondispositive
motion . . . shall be an adequate basis, without more, for granting the relief sought in

1

Defendant’s Response to the Motion to Compel was due on or before August
25, 2011. See Local Rule 7.2(b) (providing that a party shall file a response to a
motion within fourteen days); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)(providing that a party shall have
three extra days to file a response when the motion was served by mail).
-1-

said motion”).
Plaintiff also requests an award of $100 for the “reasonable expenses” he
allegedly incurred filing his Motion to Compel.

However, Plaintiff, who is

proceeding pro se, has not provided the Court with evidence substantiating his claim
that he incurred any expenses in preparing or filing his handwritten Motion.
Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i) provides that a court should not award
expenses when the “movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain
disclosure or discovery without court action.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel does not
contain a statement indicating that he attempted, in good faith, to resolve this
discovery dispute without court intervention. See also Local Rule 7.2(g) (providing
that a motion to compel “shall contain a statement by the moving party that the parties
have conferred in good faith on the specific issue or issues in dispute and that they are
not able to resolve their disagreement without intervention of the Court”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for $100 in costs is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT;
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket entry #17) is: (a) GRANTED IN

PART, such that Defendant Perkins shall file, on or before September 13, 2011, his
Answers to Plaintiff’s July 3, 2011Interrogatories; and (b) DENIED in all other
respects.
-2-

Dated this 30th day of August, 2011.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-