Lyvers v. Newkirk et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 5/31/2018 denying 68 Motion to Compel (James Newkirk) and denying 69 Motion to Compel (Jordan Jones). cc: Eric Todd Lyvers, pro se; Counsel (CDF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-00096-GNS

ERIC TODD LYVERS

PLAINTIFF

VS.

JAMES NEWKIRK, ET AL

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Before the Court are the motions of Plaintiff Eric Todd Lyvers to compel discovery
responses from Defendant James Newkirk, DN 68, and from Defendant Jordan Jones, DN 69.
The Defendants have filed responses at DN 74 and 73. There has been no reply.
Mr. Lyvers states in his motion that he submitted requests for admission, interrogatories,
and requests for production of documents to the Defendants and that, in response, the Defendants
only provided “’Smoke Screen’ answers and Excuses for Answers” (DN 68, p. 1; DN 69, p. 1).
His motions reproduce several of his discovery requests, but he does not discuss the Defendants’
responses or the basis for his belief that the responses are insufficient under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Where a Plaintiff fails to explain how a discovery response is inadequate, a
motion to compel will be denied. Hibbs v. Marcum, No. 3:16-CV-146-TBR-LLK, 2018 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 26725, *15 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2018).

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to compel, DN 68 and 69, are
DENIED.

May 31, 2018

Copies:

Eric Todd Lyvers, pro se
Counsel

2