Bumphus, Jr. v. Unique Personnel Consultants et al
ORDER re 52 Discovery Dispute Conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 9/20/16. (sgp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNIQUE PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS,)
HENNESSY AND ROACH, P.C., ANDREW)
G. TOENNIES, and SYNERGY COVERAGE)
JOHN DAN BUMPHUS, JR.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-312-SMY-DGW
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
On September 20, 2016, a discovery dispute conference was held in which Plaintiff
appeared pro se along with attorneys Rahimi, Gamboa, and Reed for their respective clients, and
attorney Toennies, on behalf of himself. Plaintiff disputes various responses to interrogatories
served upon Defendants around August 8, 2016 and a second set of interrogatories served around
August 30, 2016.
As to the interrogatories served upon Defendant Toennies, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to
re-serve interrogatories 1, 3, and 6, provided that they are re-written so as to be clear and concise.
Plaintiff is directed to simply set forth his question and to avoid unnecessary and argumentative
phrases like “[a]s a member of the bar” and “why you chose to make a false representation.”
Plaintiff shall re-serve these three interrogatories by September 28, 2016 and Defendant shall
respond by October 12, 2016. Defendant Toennies shall re-serve the letter dated September 9,
2015 identified in the response to interrogatory 4 and shall perform an additional search for any
Page 1 of 2
additional responsive documents to interrogatory 5. The September 9, 2015 letter and any
additional responsive documents shall also be served by October 12, 2016.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories (## 7-8) directed at attorney
Toennies to be wholly improper and no response is required.
Plaintiff also objects to Defendant Yate-Wellers objection regarding the characterization of
his disabled status.
In response to interrogatory 1, Defendant states that she “objects to the
characterization of Plaintiff as ‘disabled’ on the bases that said characterization is argumentative
and improper . . . .” The Court finds that this is a valid objection because, notwithstanding the
evidence that Plaintiff may have regarding his disabled status, such a fact has not been established
in this case at this time.
Plaintiff indicated that he had no further issues with these Defendants’ remaining
responses or the other responses tendered by the other Defendants. The parties are encouraged to
contact chambers if any further discovery disputes arise, provided that they first meet and confer in
an effort to resolve the problem(s) prior to seeking judicial intervention.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: September 21, 2016
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?