Coffey v. Hobbs et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 50 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 10/27/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION KENNY COFFEY, ADC #86434 v. PLAINTIFF 5:11-cv-00086-DPM-JTK RAY HOBBS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 50). Defendants filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. No. 51). In the Motion, Plaintiff complains that Defendants have not responded to discovery requests submitted to them on May 11, 2011 and May 19, 2011. Defendants state in their Response that requests for interrogatories were filed prior to issuance of summons and service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on them in June, 2011, but that they never received a request for production of documents. Defendants state they responded to all discovery requests submitted by the Plaintiff. This Motion concerns issues raised previously in Plaintiff’s August 5, 2011 Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 32), which were addressed in the Court’s August 30, 2011 Order (Doc. No. 41). In that Order, Plaintiff’s Motion was denied as moot, and the Court directed that copies of the Defendants’ discovery responses be forwarded to the Plaintiff. Id. In the present Motion, Plaintiff does not identify the documents requested from the Defendants or the relevance of those documents to his action. Therefore, in light of Defendants’ Response, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 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?