BLACKWELL v. TRUEBLOOD et al

Filing 138

ORDER DISCUSSING PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS - Because the plaintiff's motion does not provide enough information for the Court to evaluate his motion or defendants' objections, and because he failed to confer with the defendants, the plainti ff's motion, dkt. 100 , is denied. Because there appears to be nothing deficient about the defendants' responses to the plaintiff's discovery requests, the plaintiff's motions, dkt. 98 dkt. 112 , dkt. 118 , and dkt. 126 , are denied. See Order for details. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 10/31/2019 (Copy mailed to Plaintiff). (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
KEITH L. BLACKWELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
E. TRUEBLOOD, et al.
Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-00407-JPH-DLP

ORDER DISCUSSING PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS
I.
On August 1, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for court order regarding discovery. Dkt. 100.
He opposes several of the defendants’ objections to his requests to admit. He does not attach either his
requests to admit or the defendants’ objections to them. Because he only refers to the objections by
number, the Court cannot make any assessment regarding the appropriateness of the defendants’
objections.
The defendants responded that the plaintiff failed to confer with them before filing his motion
and that the motion should be denied because the plaintiff did not seek any specific relief. Dkt. 106.
The plaintiff did not reply. Because the plaintiff’s motion does not provide enough information for the
Court to evaluate his motion or defendants’ objections, and because he failed to confer with the
defendants, the plaintiff’s motion, dkt. [100], is denied.

II.
The plaintiff has filed numerous duplicative motions seeking the production of documents
related to air flow and ventilation in his cell while he was incarcerated at Terre Haute Federal
Correctional Institution (“Terre Haute”). Dkt. 98, dkt. 112, dkt. 118, dkt. 126. In their responses,
the defendants contend that they have produced the requested documents. Dkt. 104, dkt. 125,
1

dkt. 130. They also note that the plaintiff failed to confer with them before filing his motions and
that his misunderstanding of the documents produced could have been resolved without Court
intervention if he had conferred with them first. For example, in his motion to compel filed on July
24, 2019, the plaintiff argued that the defendants produced an irrelevant document related to a
kitchen cooking hood, but the defendants responded that the document in fact relates to air
ventilation in inmate cells at Terre Haute. Dkt. 104.
The plaintiff did not reply to any of the defendants’ responses. Because there appears to be
nothing deficient about the defendants’ responses to the plaintiff’s discovery requests, the
plaintiff’s motions, dkt. [98] dkt. [112], dkt. [118], and dkt. [126], are denied.
The plaintiff is reminded that he must first attempt to resolve any discovery dispute with
the defendants by writing them a letter that details what the plaintiff believes is deficient about the
defendants’ discovery responses. He may only file a motion to compel if his attempts to resolve
the dispute with the defendants fail. Rule 37(a)(1) provides that a party must include a certification
that “the movant 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.”
If the plaintiff continues to believe that the defendants have failed to produce documents
he has requested, he should write them a letter stating what documents he believes they have failed
to disclose. If the issue is not resolved after conferring with the defendants, and the plaintiff
chooses to file a motion to compel, his motion must include the certification discussed above, and
attach both the disputed discovery request and the defendants’ response to it. As stated in this
Court’s scheduling order, “[t]he party filing the motion [to compel] must explain exactly what
information he or she seeks and why the response was inadequate.”
SO ORDERED.

2

Date: 10/31/2019

Distribution:
KEITH L. BLACKWELL
41030-044
SHERIDAN - FCI
SHERIDAN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 5000
SHERIDAN, OR 97378
Rachana Nagin Fischer
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

3