Adams v. Sgt. Jones et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying without prejudice 56 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 4/18/2018. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
LEE FRANK ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:16-cv-105-J-32JRK

SERGEANT JONES, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc.
56; Motion) is DENIED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local
Rules 3.01(a), 3.01(g), and 3.04(a), Local Rules of the United
States

District

Court

for

the

Middle

District

of

Florida.

Specifically, Plaintiff failed to include a memorandum of legal
authority,1 failed to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing
the Motion in an attempt to resolve the disputed issues, and failed
to include
[a] quotation in full of each interrogatory .
. . or request for production to which the
motion is addressed; each of which shall be
followed immediately by quotation in full of
the objection and grounds therefor as stated
by the opposing party; or the answer or
Plaintiff includes in his motion a section titled “Authority,”
in which he cites to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 37.
See Motion at 2. However, Plaintiff does not include points of law
or authority supporting the specific relief he seeks with respect
to the individual discovery requests at issue.
1

response which is asserted to be insufficient,
immediately followed by a statement of the
reason the motion should be granted.
Local Rule 3.04(a).
Defendants Jones, Kelly, and Twiggs’ response2 to Plaintiff’s
Motion

indicates

they

have

been

responsive

to

Plaintiff’s

discovery requests. See Defendants’ Response (Doc. 57). Despite
proceeding

pro

se,

Plaintiff

is

required

to

adhere

to

the

applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local
Rules. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)
(“[O]nce a pro se IFP litigant is in court, he is subject to the
relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.”). The Court encourages Plaintiff to communicate
via letter with counsel for Defendants to resolve any outstanding
discovery disputes.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 18th day of
April, 2018.

Jax-6
c:
Lee Frank Adams, Jr., #792455
Counsel of Record
2

Defendant Jonas has not filed a response.
2