Orange v. Lowe et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying as premature and as moot 47 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benjamin W. Cheesbro on 8/5/2020. (ca)

Case 2:18-cv-00001-LGW-BWC Document 51 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 2
FILED
John E. Triplett, Acting Clerk
United States District Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
BRUNSWICK DIVISION

By casbell at 3:43 pm, Aug 05, 2020

SHAMPOIRE VALENTINO ORANGE,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-1

v.
COL. JUDY LOWE; SEGEANT ANTONIO
JONES; and SERGEANT ERIC ROZIER,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Doc. 47. For the
following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks a Court
Order compelling Defendants to produce disciplinary records of Defendants Jones and Rozier
and records of the December 16, 2018 incident forming the basis for this case. 1 Id. Plaintiff
states he submitted a written request for the documents on May 26, 2020. Id. In their Response,
Defendants state they received Plaintiff’s request on June 1, 2020, and they served responses to
the request on June 26, 2020. Doc. 48. “[T]he party to whom [a request for production] is
directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A).
Defendants responses were not due until June 29, 2020; therefore, their June 26, 2020 responses
were timely. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is moot.

1

As the events giving rise to this case occurred on December 16, 2017, the Court believes Plaintiff
merely made a typographical error regarding the date. In any case, Defendants are not in possession of
any documents relating to an event on December 16, 2018. Doc. 48 at 2 n.3.
2

Defendants also state they are not the custodians of the documents Plaintiff requested but have
asked the Sheriff to provide any such responsive documents that are in his custody and control. Doc. 48
at 1 n.2. Additionally, Defendants state they produced hundreds of documents to Plaintiff in response to
this discovery request. Id.

Case 2:18-cv-00001-LGW-BWC Document 51 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 2

Furthermore, Plaintiff made no attempt to confer in good faith with Defendants, as
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 26.5 require. 3 On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff
mailed a follow-up letter to Defendants requesting documents other than those provided in a
prior discovery response but did not specify what those documents were. Doc. 48 at 4.
Moreover, Defendants did not receive the letter until July 9, the date the instant Motion to
Compel was filed. Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and Plaintiff failed to
confer in good faith with Defendants before filing his Motion. That failure, alone, warrants
denial of Plaintiff’s discovery motion. Dunham v. Gilbert, CV 318-018, 2019 WL 3294189, at
*5 (S.D. Ga. July 22, 2019). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as
premature and as moot.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of August, 2020.

_____________________________________
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3

For Plaintiff’s future reference, Federal Rule 37(a)(1) states, “On notice to other parties and all
affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The 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.”
Additionally, Local Rule 26.5 requires “a party seeking a protective order or moving to compel discovery
to certify that a good faith effort has been made to resolve the dispute before coming to court.”