Kraemer v. United Parcel Service et al
Filing
134
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 129 MOTION for the Court to Order McNeely Stephenson Thopy and Harrold to Answer Interrogatories/Discovery filed on June 2, 2014 by Plaintiff Kimberly Sue Kraemer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/5/14. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
KIMBERLY SUE KRAEMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:14-CV-170
OPINION and ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for the Court to Order McNeely Stephenson Thopy
and Harrold to Answer Interrogatories/Discovery Filed on June 2, 2014,” asking that the Court
compel Defendant Law Offices of McNeely Stephenson Thopy and Harrold to answer certain
discovery “submitted almost a year ago in which they were Court ordered to [a]nswer.” (Docket
# 129.)
But Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature. A preliminary pretrial conference has yet
to occur in this case, and discovery has not even commenced. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (“A party
may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule
26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when
authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”).
And even if discovery had commenced, Plaintiff failed to “include a certification that
[she] has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1);
see N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a) (“A party filing any discovery motion must file a separate
certification that the party has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with other affected
parties in an effort to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court action.”).
Furthermore, there is no discovery dated June 2, 2014, of record. Nor does Plaintiff
attach the purported discovery requests to her motion. See N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-2(b) (“A party who
files a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) or 37 must file with the motion those parts of
the discovery requests or responses that the motion pertains to.”). Accordingly, the Court
suspects that Plaintiff is referring to discovery she requested from Defendant in a state case
concerning an unrelated auto accident. (See Docket # 11 at 1.) This Court, however, has no
jurisdiction over discovery ongoing in a state court case. (See Docket # 50 at 1, 101 at 1.)
For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket # 129) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2014
s/Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey
United States District Court
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?