Ollie v. Hodge et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING 67 MOTION to Copy filed by Robert Ollie; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 71 MOTION to Compel filed by Robert Ollie; DENYING 74 MOTION to Strike 71 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendants; and GRANTING 79 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Defendants. The Schedule is AMENDED as follows: Discovery due by 5/22/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 6/22/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/1/2015. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ROBERT OLLIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCUS HODGE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-1181-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the following motions pending in this matter:
1. Motion for Copy of Transcript filed by Plaintiff, Robert Ollie, on December 18,
2014 (Doc. 67);
2. Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Interrogatories filed by
Plaintiff, Robert Ollie, on February 18, 2015 (Doc. 71);
3. Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed by Defendants on March 2,
2015 (Doc. 74); and
4. Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Defendants on
March 24, 2015 (Doc. 79).
Motion for Copy of Transcript (Doc. 67)
In the motion before the Court, Plaintiff seeks a copy of the transcript of the hearing held
pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) before the Court on October 16, 2014.
28 U.S.C. § 753(f) provides that a transcript may be prepared, at the government’s expense, “to
persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis … if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that
the appeal is not frivolous.” In this case, although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, there
is no statutory authority that would allow this Court to furnish a copy of the transcript of the
Page 1 of 3

October 16, 2014 proceedings, as Plaintiff has not indicated he is attempting to appeal any decision
of this Court related to the Pavey Hearing. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Copy of Transcript
(Doc. 67) is DENIED. Plaintiff is ADVISED that he may acquire a copy of the transcript, after
tendering payment, by contacting the Court Reporter, Molly Clayton, 750 Missouri Avenue,
Melvin Price Courthouse, East St. Louis, IL 62201.
Motion to Compel (Doc. 71) and Motion to Strike (Doc. 74)
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel asking the Court to order Defendants to produce “all the
remaining previously requested documents, interrogatories, surveillance camera footage and any
and all internal affairs reports” (Doc. 71). In his motion, Plaintiff delineates seven discovery
requests he alleges he propounded on Defendants that he claims Defendants have not provided a
sufficient response to. Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his written discovery requests or
Defendants’ responses with his motion.
In response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants filed a motion asking the Court to
strike Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 74). Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to confer, or attempt to
confer, with them in an effort to obtain the requested information and further state that Plaintiff
failed to attach a copy of the discovery documents and responses that are the subject of Plaintiff’s
motion. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s failure to provide a copy of the discovery requests at
issue has inhibited their ability to respond to Plaintiff’s motion, as such, they ask that it be stricken.
Defendants attached a copy of Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, along with their
responses, to their motion.
Local Rule 26.1(b)(3) provides that any discovery motion “shall have attached to it or the
accompanying memorandum a copy of the actual discovery documents which are the subject of
the motion or, in the alternative, set out in the memorandum a verbatim recitation of each
Page 2 of 3

interrogatory, request, answer, response, and/or objection which is the subject of the motion.” As
Defendants point out, Plaintiff has failed to provide either a copy of the actual discovery
documents or a verbatim recitation of each request and response. Moreover, the particular
information Plaintiff seeks does not correlate with any of the requests to produce received by
Defendants.

As such, it is unclear what responses Plaintiff complains about.

The Court,

therefore, cannot effectively determine whether Plaintiff’s motion to compel is meritorious.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 71) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that any further motions to compel must comply with Local Rule
26.1(b)(3). Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 74) is DENIED.
Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 79)
In this Motion, Defendants seek an extension of time to complete discovery and,
accordingly, an extension of time for the filing of dispositive motions. Counsel for Defendants
avers that the request is brought in good faith and not for purposes of undue delay. For good
cause shown, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 79) is GRANTED. The schedule is amended as
follows:
1. Discovery shall be completed by May 22, 2015.
2. Dispositive motions shall be filed by June 22, 2015.
All other dates and deadlines, including the trial and final pre-trial conference, remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 1, 2015
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3