Adkins et al v. Reynolds et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM ORDER: The motion to compel (D.I. 62 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall respond to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, and 10, and Production Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 on or before August 7, 2020. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplementary evidence for discovery (D.I. 74 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/23/2020. (crb) Modified on 7/23/2020 (nms).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TYRONE M. ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DETECTIVE DALLAS REYNOLDS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civil Action. No. 15-882-RGA
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 23rd day of July, 2020, having considered Defendants’ motion
to compel (D.I. 62) and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file supplementary evidence for
discovery (D.I. 74);
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the motion to compel (D.I. 62) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part; (2) Plaintiff shall respond to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, and
10, and Production Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 on or before August 7, 2020; and
(3) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file supplementary evidence for discovery (D.I. 74) is
GRANTED, for the reasons that follow:
1.

Defendants served discovery on Plaintiff on May 31, 2016. (D.I. 19, D.I.

20). Defendants served the discovery requests on Plaintiff again on January 10, 2020.
(See D.I. 50). On May 15, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to
respond to the discovery requests. (D.I. 62). Defendants state that Plaintiff refuses to
answer Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, and has not provided complete
1

responses to requests for production. (See D.I. 78). Plaintiff did not file a response to
the motion.
2.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, “Parties may obtain discovery regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
3.

Plaintiff filed answers to interrogatories on May 26, 2020. (D.I. 66). The

Court finds that Plaintiff has filed adequate responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11.
As to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, and 12 to which he objected, the objections are
overruled as they were not timely made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Plaintiff is
required to answer Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, and 12.
4.

Defendants served seven production requests upon Plaintiff. Nothing on

the docket indicates that Plaintiff responded to the production requests. Plaintiff
recently filed a motion to supplement his responses to discovery requests, which
appears to be responsive to Request No. 5. (D.I. 74; D.I. 78). Plaintiff’s motion will be
granted. However, that does not cure Plaintiff’s obligation to respond to the other
2

production requests. Plaintiff is reminded that there is a continuing obligation to
supplement responses to discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Plaintiff is ordered to
respond to Production Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

/s/ Richard G. Andrews
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3