Proctor v. Suphan et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying 93 Motion to Compel; granting 105 Motion to Dismiss Motion for Copies 94 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 7/1/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
TERRY PROCTOR,
ADC #87410
v.

PLAINTIFF

5:10-cv-00376-SWW-JTK

NEEMA SUPHAN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, for Copies, and to Dismiss
his Motion for Copies (Doc. Nos. 93, 94, 105). Defendants filed Responses to the Motion to Compel
(Doc. Nos. 96, 100, 104) and to the Motion for Copies (Doc. Nos. 97, 101).
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff states Defendants have not responded to his discovery
requests, despite sending three letters to each counsel requesting responses. Plaintiff claims
Defendants are conspiring to use unethical trial tactics against him.
In her Response (Doc. No. 96), Defendant Kelley states she mailed a copy of her responses
to Plaintiff on May 26, 2011, and a second copy after receiving a letter from the Plaintiff. Defendant
denies receiving three letters from Plaintiff and denies Plaintiff’s conspiracy accusations. Defendant
Kelley also attaches copies of her responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Doc. Nos. 96-1, 96-2).
Defendant Suphan, in her Response (Doc. No. 100), states that her discovery responses are not yet
due, since she just recently received the requests, and denies receiving a letter from Plaintiff
conferring about the discovery prior to filing his Motion. Separate Defendants Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. (CMS), Green, Miller, Mullins and Ifediora (medical Defendants) state they were not
properly served with Plaintiff’s requests because their counsel had not yet entered an appearance at
the time Plaintiff submitted the requests. Defendants also state Plaintiff has failed to resolve this
disagreement prior to filing his Motion as required by Local Rule 7.2 and FED .R.CIV .P. 37(a)(1).

Finally, Defendants state they advised Plaintiff they could not respond to his requests because they
were not directed to any particular Defendant and that Plaintiff has not resolved this dispute by
identifying the parties to whom the discovery was directed.
In light of Defendants’ Responses, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.
Plaintiff may resubmit his discovery requests to the medical Defendants by identifying the parties
to whom they are directed. In addition, Plaintiff is cautioned to comply with the Local Rule 7.2
which requires parties to confer prior to filing motions with the Court about discovery disputes.
Finally, the Court finds no evidence of bad faith or a conspiracy on the part of the Defendants.
Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 93) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 105) his Motion
for Copies (Doc. No. 94) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of July, 2011.

______________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE