WOOSLEY v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.
Filing
59
ORDER denying Pltf's 55 Motion seeking leave to propound limited discovery (see Order). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/29/2012. (SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CANDACE WOOSLEY,
STEVEN W. WOOSLEY SR.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
C.R. ENGLAND, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) NO. 1:11-cv-01558-WTL-MJD
)
)
)
)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO
PROPOUND LIMITED DISCOVERY
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion
Seeking Leave to Propound Limited Discovery Upon Defendant C.R.
England, Inc. [Dkt. 55].
purpose to this motion.
First, the Court fails to see any
Discovery in this matter has been open
since the Rule 26(f) conference was conducted.
26(d)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The Rule 26(f) conference must, by definition, have
been conducted prior to the submission of the parties' proposed
Case Management Plan on February 10, 2012.
Therefore, Plaintiff
has been free to serve discovery since at least early February
and no leave to serve discovery on another party is required.
Other than requesting leave to serve the discovery in
question, the only other relief sought in Plaintiff's motion is a
request to limit the time for Defendant to respond to that
discovery to 21 days after the discovery is served.
3.]
[Dkt. 55 at
No explanation for that request was provided and, in the
absence of the specific requests in question, Defendant could not
properly respond and the Court could not properly evaluate such a
request.
Furthermore, Local Rule 37-1 mandates a conference of
attorneys prior to involving the Court in any discovery dispute
and further requires the
submission of a statement setting forth
the efforts to resolve such dispute by negotiation prior to
involving the Court.
S.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1.
included in Plaintiff's motion.
No such statement was
Additionally, the approved Case
Management Plan requires the parties to request a telephonic
conference with the Court prior to the filing of a discovery
motion if the Local Rule 37-1 conference was unsuccessful.
48 at 5.]
[Dkt.
Given the nature of Plaintiff's motion, compliance
with these requirements would likely have avoided the need for
the motion entirely.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Seeking
Leave to Propound Limited Discovery Upon Defendant C.R. England,
Inc. [Dkt. 55] is DENIED.
Dated: 03/29/2012
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
All Electrically Registered Counsel
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?