Johnson v. Heinis et al

Filing 57

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 50 Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/28/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03135-WJM-KLM
KEITH ALLEN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY HEINIS, #06140
CHRIS CAMERON, #87014, and
CHRISTOPHER BALES, #87014,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery
[Docket No. 50; Filed October 26, 2012] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff has not filed a response
and the time to do so has expired. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. Defendants have filed a
Reply in Support of Their Motion to Compel Discovery [#53; Filed November 25, 2012].
Defendants seek an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Heinis’s First
Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff and Defendant
Cameron’s Interrogatories to Plaintiff (“Discovery Requests”). Defendants explain that they
served the Discovery Requests on Plaintiff by mail on August 15, 2012 at the Arkansas
Valley Correctional Facility in Crowley, Colorado. [#50] at 2. As of November 25, 2012,
Plaintiff had not provided responses to the Discovery Requests, which were due on or
about September 23, 2012. [#50] at 2; [#53] at 1. Defendants also request that pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), Plaintiff be required to pay their reasonable expenses,

including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing the Motion. [#50] at 2-3.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B) provides that a party may move to compel discovery
responses if the party to whom the discovery requests were propounded fails to properly
respond. Any such motion “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or
discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

Defendants’ Motion contains no such certification or any information about their attempts
to resolve the matter without court action. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#50] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: November 28, 2012

2