Alvin v. Veal et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 27 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff is ORDERED to amend his responses to Veals interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days of service of this Order to comply with his discovery obligations. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 10/12/18. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ALJANON ALVIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CPL. VEAL of the SCMPD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By jburrell at 9:15 am, Oct 15, 2018

CV417-206

)
)
)
)

ORDER
Corporal Veal’s motion to compel responses to his outstanding
discovery requests (doc. 27), which is unopposed by operation of Local
Rule 7.5 (no response means no opposition), is GRANTED.

It appears

that plaintiff has both received the motion and, in lieu of opposing it,
mailed untimely responses to defendant. See doc. 30, Exh. A. Veal
contends these responses are insufficient, id.; plaintiff has still filed no
response to the motion weighing in one way or another.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to amend his responses to Veal’s
interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days
of service of this Order to comply with his discovery obligations. 1 If Alvin

1

The Court appreciates that Alvin is not an attorney. Even pro se litigants, however

does not amend his responses, defendant is DIRECTED to so apprise the
Court and a recommendation of dismissal will be entered on inactivity
and, thus, abandonment grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing
district courts to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order); L.R.
41.1(a) (authorizing district court to dismiss for failure to abide discovery
obligations); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts
have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution);
Collins v. Lake Helen, L.P., 249 F. App’x 116, 120 (11th Cir. 2007)
(“[D]istrict court[s] possesses the inherent power to police [their]
docket[s]” and to prune out those cases left to languish by their litigants).
One further matter: Alvin has sent his discovery responses and
information to this Court for filing on the docket and directs defendant
to review the docket in search of responsive answers to its outstanding

must comply with discovery obligations. The Court also appreciates that Alvin appears
to have made some effort to respond. See doc. 30-1 at 6 (identifying potential
witnesses). That attempt, however, is insufficient. Alvin must respond separately to
each numbered interrogatory and document request (and his responses should be
numbered to indicate the interrogatory or document request he is responding to),
although his response to any particular request may refer to a previous response. If
he does not know the answer to any particular request, his response should say so. If
he does not know an answer, but believes that responsive information is available from
some other source, he should state where or how the information might be discovered.
The Court will not penalize a party’s good faith attempt to comply with his discovery
obligations. A good faith attempt, of course, must be made.
2

discovery responses. Doc. 32. This Court is not a repository for plaintiff’s
discovery responses. It has no role in collecting or organizing plaintiff’s
discovery responses. If Alvin needs to serve discovery on defendants, he
must do so pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED, this

12th day of October, 2018.

3