Lampley v. Mitcheff et al

Filing 60

OPINION AND ORDER denying 43 MOTION to Compel filed by Tommy Lampley. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein on 3/19/09. (kds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION TOMMY LAMPLEY, Plaintiff, v. DR. MICHAEL MITCHEFF, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAUSE NO. 3:08-CV- 282 PS

OPINION AND ORDER Tommy Lampley, a pro se prisoner, filed a motion [Doc. No. 43] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 37 (a)(2)(B)(3) to compel the defendants and Prison Health Care Services (aka Correctional Medical Services, "CMS"), a non-party, to produce the documents he previously requested. The defendants, by counsel, filed a response [Doc. No. 53] to the motion. Defendants' counsel correctly points out Lampley did not provide a statement that he "has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Counsel also contends Lampley's motion to compel is actually a third set of discovery requests. Moreover, she maintains that Lampley did not inform her there was a discovery dispute or that he wanted the defendants to supplement their responses to his earlier discovery requests. Because it appears Lampley has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B), his motion to compel [Doc. No. 43] is not ripe and is, therefore, DENIED. Adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure is a necessary predicate before seeking the courts intervention in a discovery dispute.

SO ORDERED. Entered this 19th of March, 2009. S/Christopher A. Nuechterlein Christopher A. Nuechterlein United States Magistrate Judge

2