Ferguson v. Prince George's County, Maryland et al
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 11/9/2016. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
KENNETH FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
MARYLAND, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. TDC-14-3613
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants Officer Terrance Walker and Prince George’s County, Maryland submit
before this Court their Motion To Compel (“the Motion”) (ECF No. 51). Plaintiff Kenneth
Ferguson has not submitted a response to the Motion. The Court has reviewed the Motion and
applicable law. No hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the
reasons presented below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on February 27, 2015, alleging assault, battery,
false arrest, and four counts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including excessive force and arrest without
probable cause. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-42. On October 3, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to
Withdraw from the case, (ECF No. 39), which the Court granted on October 15, 2015. (ECF No.
40). The parties’ discovery deadline was extended from June 13, 2016, until August 19, 2016.
(ECF No. 50).
Defendants served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff
on March 2, 2016 with a deadline for responses to be served no later than April 4, 2016. Defs.’
Mot. 3. After the deadline passed without a response from Plaintiff, Defendants mailed a letter
1
to Plaintiff regarding his outstanding discovery responses. Id. Another letter was mailed to
Plaintiff on May 2, 2016 and again on May 16, 2016, without response from Plaintiff. Id. On
May 19, 2016, Defendants’ counsel spoke to Plaintiff in person and hand-delivered the initial
written requests for discovery, advising him that his responses were overdue. Id. Defendants’
counsel claims that from June 13, 2016, through June 20, 2016, she called Plaintiff every day on
his home phone number and left voicemail messages. Id. She also attempted to contact Plaintiff
at his work phone number. Although Plaintiff responded to two of those messages, he “failed to
address [Defendants’ counsel’s] detailed inquiries.” Id. On June 20, 2016, another letter was
mailed to Plaintiff. Id.
On August 5, 2016, Defendants again sent a letter to Plaintiff regarding his outstanding
discover responses. Id. Three days later, on August 8, 2016, Defendants’ counsel called
Plaintiff at his home and work phone numbers. Id. Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s “mother
answered the home phone and advised that [Plaintiff] no longer resided at his last known
address,” where Defendants had been mailing letters, but a new mailing address was not
provided. Id. Plaintiff has yet to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests.
DISCUSSION
The Maryland Federal Court Rules require parties to “confer with one another concerning
a discovery dispute[.]” Local Rule 104.7 (D. Md.). Local Rule 104.7 dictates:
The Court will not consider any discovery motion unless the moving party has
filed a certificate reciting (a) the date, time and place of the discovery conference,
and the names of all persons participating therein, or (b) counsel’s attempts to
hold such a conference without success; and (c) itemization of the issues requiring
resolution by the Court.
(Emphasis added.)
2
Defendants have provided to the Court a series of letters as exhibits detailing the
attempted communications with Plaintiff for the purpose of following up on the discovery
requests. By definition, these letters are not an attempt by Defendants to “confer” with Plaintiff
on the discovery matter. Defendants have not represented that they ever made an attempt to hold
a “conference without success.” At best, Defendants merely made demands. However, given
the extraordinary lengths Defendants have gone through to elicit a response from Plaintiff, the
Court, as an exception, will deem these attempts as satisfying Local Rule 104.7 and consider the
Motion.
Although the Court has decided to consider the Motion, the Court is unable to rule on the
Motion because Defendants have not provided the Court with a copy of the discovery requests
that they served to Plaintiff. The Court cannot grant the Motion in a vacuum. For example, if
Defendants are requesting in their interrogatories information concerning irrelevant medical
history, the Court would not compel Plaintiff to answer such questions in a § 1983 case. Without
knowing exactly what information Defendants are requesting from Plaintiff, the Court cannot
make a ruling on the merits of the Motion. As a result, the Court must deny the Motion for
Defendants’ failure to attach their request.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice for failure to
attach Defendants’ discovery requests. In the event Defendants seek to cure this deficiency,
Defendants must file a supplemental motion attaching the discovery requests served to Plaintiff
within five (5) calendar days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion, otherwise, the Motion
will be dismissed with prejudice.
3
November 9, 2016
/s/
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge
CBD/xl
4
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?