Brown v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 65 Motion to Compel by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 06/05/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03191-WYD-BNB
TIMOTHY DEMITRI BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. #65, filed
05/31/2013] (the “Motion”). The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff seeks an order compelling the defendants to produce certain discovery in
response to his Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories. However, the Request
for Production of Documents and Interrogatories is not attached to the Motion, and the plaintiff
does not set forth verbatim his requests and the defendants’ responses to those requests.
Local rule of practice 37.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR, specifies the form of discovery motions
as follows:
A motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or 37 directed to an
interrogatory, request, or response under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 or 34
shall either set forth in the text of the motion the specific
interrogatory, request, or response to which the motion is directed,
or an exhibit that contains the interrogatory, request, or response
shall be attached.

This is an important requirement. I cannot rule on a motion to compel in an informed
manner unless I know precisely what was asked for in the disputed discovery and precisely what
the response to the request was.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED for failure to comply with the requirements
of D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1.
Dated June 5, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2