Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al

Filing 51

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 49 MOTION for Discovery (Motion to Compel) filed by Anthony C Martin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/28/12. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-352

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court in this action advancing various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 is a motion to compel filed by the pro se Plaintiff, claiming that Defendants failed to
respond to his First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket # 49.)
Plaintiff’s motion, however, is misplaced, as the record reflects that Defendants did
indeed respond to his discovery request, producing some documents and raising some objections.
(Docket # 44, 45); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) (explaining that a response to a document request
includes producing the responsive documents or an objection to the request, including the
reasons). Nor does Plaintiff identify with any particularity a specific response that is purportedly
inadequate such that the Court could discern whether an order to supplement the response is
necessary. See, e.g., Morris v. Ley, No. 05 C-0458, 2006 WL 2585029, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 7,
2006) (denying pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel because it was “nearly impossible to
ascertain which documents the plaintiff seeks to have produced”).
Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket # 49) is DENIED without prejudice,
subject to renewal once he compares his discovery requests to the responsive documents and

objections produced by Defendants.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 28th day of June, 2012.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2