Smith v. Cain et al

Filing 51

RULING denying 48 Motion to Expand Discovery and 50 Motion for Additional Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Docia L Dalby on 7/21/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THEODORE SMITH (#313084)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO. 09-0322-RET-DLD
RULING

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to Expand Discovery and Motion
for Additional Discovery, rec.doc.nos. 48 and 50, pursuant to which he seeks leave of Court to
engage in discovery directed to three non-parties to this proceeding and leave of Court to propound
additional discovery to defendant Burl Cain. These motions shall be denied. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure allow for discovery directed to non-parties only by way of depositions or by way of
subpoenas compelling the non-parties to produce, at specific times and places, documents or things
which are explicitly and definitively identified in the subpoenas. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30, 31, 34 and 45.
Although the plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status in this case, he is not entitled to such
discovery at public expense, and he has indicated no ability or inclination to arrange for the advance
payment of the costs associated with serving subpoenas on such non-parties, of the costs associated
with retaining court reporters and the transcription of deposition testimony, of witness fees, or of the
expense of making copies of any requested materials at the times and places delineated for
production. The plaintiff cannot expect the Court, opposing counsel or the non-parties to bear the
cost of such proceedings. Finally, with regard to the plaintiff’s request to propound additional
discovery to defendant Cain, this request shall be denied because the plaintiff has not provided the
Court with copies of the proposed additional discovery and, moreover, has not filed into the record
his initial discovery directed to this defendant in accordance with the Court’s Order of August 12,
2009, rec.doc.no. 10. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Expand Discovery and Motion for Additional
Discovery, rec.doc.nos. 48 and 50, be and they are hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 20, 2011.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOCIA L. DALBY