Whittington v. Louisiana State et al
Filing
30
ORDER & REASONS denying 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (clm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TYRONE JUDE WHITTINGTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-0561
STATE OF LOUISIANA, NEWELL
NORMAND, LT. GARY COOK, LT. S.
ABADIE, LT. S. CARTER
SECTION “E”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
The pro se plaintiff, Tyrone Jude Whittington, filed ex parte a pleading entitled “Motion for
Plaintiff to be Allowed Sufficient Time and the Release of All Documents, Medical Records,
Cameras Footage etc. an all Evidence/Documents Produced Pursuant to Subpoena Duces
Tecum” [sic] (Rec. Doc. No. 24). Whittington seeks sufficient time to gather documentary and
other evidence needed to prove his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the defendants and to have the
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center provide certain video, documents, records and handbooks to
him, the defendants, and the Court.
As an initial matter, the Court has not scheduled pretrial deadlines or discovery cutoffs that
would limit the time Whittington has to pursue discovery. His motion is moot in that regard.
Whittington’s motion also is not a proper means of obtaining the documents or other
materials. Neither his pro se nor pauper status entitle him to avoid the costs of discovery or the costs
of serving any necessary subpoenas to obtain these items. See Badman v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601,
604-05 (M.D. Pa. 1991).1 Whittington instead must present any discovery and production requests
directly to the appropriate party or non-party in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and/or 45.
To the extent he requests this Court to compel discovery from a defendant or a non-party,
he has not indicated any attempt to obtain the information directly from the appropriate party or nonparty such to warrant intervention by the Court to compel responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. In
addition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), the plaintiff also is required to provide a certification
that he conferred with opposing counsel to amicably resolve any discovery dispute and to state why
they were unable to agree or that opposing counsel refused to so confer after reasonable notice.
Whittington has not included a certification of this kind nor has he indicated in any other manner
that he attempted to amicably resolve the discovery issues alleged before filing this motion. Thus,
he is not entitled to a court order to compel discovery responses at this time. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Whittington’s “Motion for Plaintiff to be Allowed Sufficient Time
and the Release of All Documents, Medical Records, Cameras Footage etc. an all
Evidence/Documents Produced Pursuant to Subpoena Duces Tecum” [sic] (Rec. Doc. No. 24)
is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this
day of October, 2013.
____________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
In Badman, the court noted: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not intended to burden a non-party
with a duty to suffer excessive or unusual expenses in order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. That the court may
order a discovering party to pay the reasonable costs of a non-party’s compliance with a subpoena duces tecum finds
support among said Rules.” Badman, 139 F.R.D. at 605 (citations omitted). Plaintiff has made no provision for the costs
of discovery and it is appropriate to deny his requests for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum. Id.
2
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?