Hickson v. Groom et al

Filing 16

ORDER: The 12 Motion for Judgment of Contempt, interpreted as a Motion to Compel Discovery, is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants are directed to comply with the Court's 4 Order of 6/7/2017 by providing initial disclosures to Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff's request for sanctions and/or for a Judgment of Contempt is hereby DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 10/18/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

HENRY HICKSON (#369635)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
GROOM, MASTER SGT., ET AL.

NO. 17-0218-SDD-EWD

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment of Contempt (R. Doc. 12), wherein he
complains of the failure of Defendants to provide him with initial mandatory disclosures as ordered
by the Court. The Court interprets this Motion to be a Motion to Compel Discovery, to which
Defendants have not responded.
Pursuant to Order dated June 7, 2017 (R. Doc. 4), the Court directed Defendants, within
twenty (20) days of first appearance or within thirty (30) days of service, to file into the record and
provide to Plaintiff, “all medical records, administrative remedy proceedings, disciplinary
proceedings, unusual occurrence reports and all other documents pertinent to the issues in this
case.”

A review of the record reflects that Defendants Tim Delaney and the Louisiana

Department of Public Safety and Corrections were served with copies of the Summons and
Complaint on June 19, 2017, and the State of Louisiana was served therewith on July 21, 2017.
See R. Docs. 6 and 8. Notwithstanding, Defendants have not complied with the Court’s Order
within the time allowed, have not sought reconsideration of the Court’s Order, and have not
requested additional time within which to comply. Whereas Defendants have since filed a Motion
to Dismiss in this case wherein they have asserted the defense of qualified immunity, see R. Doc.
13, that Motion was filed after the time allowed by the Court for production of the initial

documentation.

It is appropriate, therefore, that Defendants be directed to provide initial

disclosures in compliance with the Court’s Order.1 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment of Contempt (R. Doc. 12), is
hereby interpreted to be a Motion to Compel Discovery and is hereby GRANTED IN PART, such
that Defendants are directed to comply with the Court’s Order of June 7, 2017 (R. Doc. 4) by
providing initial disclosures to Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and/or for a Judgment
of Contempt is hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 18, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
Whereas Plaintiff requests the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or a Judgment of
Contempt because of Defendants’ failure to provide the referenced initial disclosures, the Court
does not find that the requested relief is warranted at this time. The delay has not been
unreasonable, and Plaintiff will not be prejudiced thereby. In addition, Defendants have since
explained to the Court that their delay in making an appearance in this case was inadvertent and
was caused by late notification of the assignment of the case to Defendants’ attorney. See R. Doc.
11.