Marsalis v. Lavespere et al

Filing 32

RULING denying 25 Motion to Compel Initial Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/2/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

FREDDIE MARSALIS (#451967)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

DR. RANDY LAVESPERE, ET AL.

NO. 15-271-JWD-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel In[i]tial
Discovery (R. Doc. 25).
Plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to provide “initial
discovery,” specifically all documentation “dealing with everything
involved in the lawsuit.”
Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested.

Although

Rule 26(a)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., and the Local Rules of this Court
provide that a party must generally provide certain discovery
materials - called “disclosures” - to the opposing party without
court order, Rule 26 specifically exempts from this requirement
“action[s] brought without an attorney by a person in the custody
of ... a state.”

Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(iv).

Defendants have no

obligation to provide Rule 26 disclosures to the plaintiff.

In

addition, all parties are required to file their discovery requests
and responses in the record.
plaintiff
defendant.

propounded

any

Furthermore,

The record does not reflect that the
written

discovery

requests

to

the

the Court notes that the defendants

provided the plaintiff with certified copies of his medical records

and pertinent administrative remedy proceedings as exhibits to the
defendants’ pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

See R.

Doc.
Accordingly,

the

plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Compel

In[i]tial

Discovery is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 2, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE