Hammond v. Hurst et al

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING 28 Motion to Compel and DENYING 32 Motion to Exclude. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 13, 2013. (jas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION SCOTT HAMMOND v. PLAINTIFF No. 3:12-cv-03103 CHAD HURST, in his official capacity only; and MEEKS THE BUILDERS CHOICE DEFENDANTS ORDER Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 28) to compel and Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 32) to exclude. Plaintiff filed a document (Doc. 28) on August 13, 2013 that the Court construed as containing, in part, a motion to compel. In relevant part, Plaintiff claimed that he combined his Rule 26 disclosures and his request for documents and that Defendants were refusing to answer his request for documents. It appears to the Court that the parties subsequently conferred via telephone and worked out the relevant issues. Plaintiff maintains in his reply (Doc. 35) that there are still unresolved issues, but only cites to an issue involving receiving paperwork showing that Defendants had changed counsel. It does not appear to the Court that Defendants have been unforthcoming or secretive as to who defense counsel is. Defendants have filed a certificate of service, on all notices of appearance and withdrawals of appearance, listing Plaintiff as having been served. The Court therefore ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 28) to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff moves to exclude “Actions of the Past of Plaintiff and Defendants Prior to Jan 1, 2002.” (Doc. 32). It appears that Plaintiff’s request is an attempt to limit discovery. His argument that such evidence is irrelevant is too general to preclude discovery of such a broad category of potential evidence at this stage. Plaintiff should make specific objections to Defendants’ discovery requests (to the Defendants). If Defendants believe that Plaintiff’s objections are not valid, Defendants can then file a motion to compel. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 32) to exclude is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2013. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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?