STONE v. BALLARD et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting in part and denying in part pltf's 33 Motion to Compel. The Court overrules pltf's request for costs (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 6/22/2011. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ALFRED STONE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY A. BALLARD, RICK POWERS,
EMILY MACK, SCOTT MASON, and
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT
OF METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00057-SEB-TAB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. [Docket No. 33.]
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, appeared in person and Defendants by counsel June 21,
2011, for a telephonic status conference, during which the parties were given a full opportunity
to be heard on Plaintiff’s motion. As set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in
part.
Plaintiff’s motion first seeks to compel an additional response to Interrogatory No. 3(b),
which seeks the age and the race of David O’Hare, the person hired instead of Plaintiff. In
response to this interrogatory, Defendants produced O’Hare’s personnel file, which contains the
requested information. This is an acceptable response, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 3(b) is denied.
Plaintiff next seeks to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 5, which asks the
Defendants to identify, for the prior two-year period, all employees under the direct supervision

of Scott Mason, the hiring official. In response, Defendants produced documents identifying all
employees (and their race, age, and date of hire) in the division Mason supervises, as well as the
Department of Metropolitan Development. Consistent with Rule 33(d), the Court finds this
response sufficient and denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel in this regard.
Despite the documents Defendants produced, Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a
verified interrogatory response from Mason stating whether O’Hare worked under Mason’s
supervision, and if so, the dates that he did so. This request is reasonable, and Plaintiff’s motion
to compel is granted in this respect. Defendants shall provide this verified response by July 5,
2011.
Finally, Plaintiff sought to compel further discovery from Indianapolis Mayor Greg
Ballard, who also is a Defendant in this case. Defendants have filed a motion seeking to have
Ballard dismissed from this lawsuit, and also provided an interrogatory response, verified by
Ballard, stating that he has no knowledge regarding the hiring of O’Hare and received no reports
regarding his hiring. Given this response and the pending motion to dismiss Ballard, the Court
exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response from Ballard at
this time. If the motion to dismiss is denied, Plaintiff should confer with Defendants’ counsel
regarding any additional discovery Plaintiff may seek from Ballard. If the parties cannot resolve
any resulting discovery dispute, any party may then request a conference with the Magistrate
Judge to address the issue.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Docket No. 33] is granted in part and
denied in part. As Defendants’ position was substantially justified, the Court overrules

2

Plaintiff’s request for costs.
Dated: 06/22/2011
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:
Jennifer Lynn Haley
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, CORPORATION COUNSEL
[e-mail]
Justin F. Roebel
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
[e-mail]
Alfred Stone
PO Box 33389
Indianapolis, IN 46203

3