Baker v. Hertz et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 58 Motion to Compel; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 59 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel; GRANTING 73 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/19/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HERTZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-cv-600-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are various Motions:
1. Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on October 7, 2015 (Doc. 58). This Motion is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff served two requests to produce on August 2, 2015 and
September 13, 2015. These requests were served prior to the date when a responsive pleading
was due, September 22, 2015. These requests also were made prior to entry of this Court’s
Scheduling Order, entered on October 20, 2015, which set forth various procedures and deadlines
for discovery. To the extent that Plaintiff has not received documents that he has requested and
that Defendants have not produced through initial disclosures or otherwise, Plaintiff may refile this
motion indicating which specific documents (and corresponding requests) he is lacking.
2.

Motion for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Plaintiff on October 19, 2015 (Doc. 59). The

Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On July 13, 2015, this Court denied, without
prejudice, Plaintiff’s previous motion for recruitment of counsel noting that Plaintiff was educated
and appeared competent to litigate this matter without counsel.

Plaintiff now indicates that he is

unsure what to do, that he has limited access to resources, and that he would be greatly benefitted

Page 1 of 2

by counsel. From Plaintiff’s filings, however, he appears wholly competent to request relief from
this Court, his pleadings are clear and concise, and, as indicated in this Court’s previous Order, his
claims are not complex. Accordingly, counsel will not be recruited at this time.
3. Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on February 29, 2016 (Doc. 73). The Motion is
GRANTED. Plaintiff states that he served discovery requests on October 28, 2015. Defendants
failed to respond, Defendants failed to seek additional time to respond, and, when Plaintiff
inquired about responses on February 9, 2016, no responses were forthcoming. Defendants also
have failed to respond to the Motion, thereby admitting the merits pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(4), 34(b)(2), and 37, Defendants SHALL
respond to the discovery requests, without objection, within 2 weeks of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 19, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2