Lucas v Delaney, et al

Filing 88

RULING : Plaintiff's 74 Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED IN PART. Within 14 days from the date of this ruling, the defendants shall send to the plaintiff a copy of the transfer order responsive to the plaintiff in Request for Producti on No. 6 and a duplicate copies of Attachments Nos. 4 through 9 of the defendants' responses to the Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. In all other respects, the plaintiff's motion is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/21/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LEE LUCAS (#338382)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
N. BURL CAIN, ET AL.

NO. 12-791-JWD-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
(R. Doc. 74).

Defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff’s

Motion, stating that they have since responded to the plaintiff’s
requests

and

that

their

failure

inadvertent (R. Docs. 75 and 85).
the

defendants’

opposition,

to

previously

respond

was

Plaintiff filed a response to

complaining

that

certain

of

the

documents allegedly sent to him by the defendants were not attached
to the defendants’ discovery responses (R. Doc. 86).1
Plaintiff complained that the defendants have not responded to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents.2
the

record,

the

Court

finds

that,

with

two

After reviewing
exceptions,

the

defendants’ responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents are sufficient.

First, it appears that the defendants

1

Plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ opposition added the
assertion that he also did not receive responses to his
interrogatories and request for admissions sent to defendant Burl
Cain. The Court will not address this assertion because in his
motion the plaintiff only complained about the defendants’ failure
to respond to his request for production of documents.
2

Record document numbers 46 and 58.

failed to provide a copy of a document requested in the plaintiff’s
Request for Production No. 6, i.e., “plaintiff’s transfer order,
transferring plaintiff from L.S.P. to D.W.C.C.”

Defendants stated

that they had requested it and would provide it upon receipt.
Defendants have apparently not yet done so.

Second, as to the

plaintiff’s assertion that he did not receive certain documents
allegedly sent to him by the defendants, the Court finds it
appropriate for the defendants to re-send copies of the documents
identified as Attachments Nos. 4 through 9 of the defendants’
responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is
GRANTED IN PART.

Within 14 days from the date of this ruling, the

defendants shall send to the plaintiff a copy of the “transfer
order” responsive to the plaintiff in Request for Production No. 6
and a duplicate copies of Attachments Nos. 4 through 9 of the
defendants’ responses to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
Documents.

In all other respects, the plaintiff’s motion is

denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 21, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE