Brown v. Lucas et al

Filing 23

Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 17 Motion for relief ; granting 20 Motion to Compel; denying 21 Motion for Hearing (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-10977-GAO
ANTHONY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER LUCAS, RANDOLPH POLICE DEPARTMENT and
OFFICER STAFFIER, RANDOLPH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendants.

ORDER
October 16, 2017
O’TOOLE, D.J.
The defendants have filed a Motion to Compel asking the Court to order the plaintiff to
respond to their interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The plaintiff opposes
this motion for a number of reasons. None of them are sufficient to justify denying the defendants’
motion. The plaintiff also asks for additional time to respond to the discovery requests so that he
may retain counsel. While the Court encourages the plaintiff to seek representation, he filed this
case originally in state court in March 2016, and has had ample time to seek counsel.
Therefore, the Motion to Compel (dkt. no. 20) is GRANTED. The plaintiff shall respond
to the defendants’ discovery requests within thirty-five (35) days of the entry of this Order. To the
extent that the plaintiff has genuine, good faith objections to the defendants’ discovery requests,
he should state them succinctly, citing applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as appropriate.
Additionally, the plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (dkt. no. 17) and Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing (dkt. no. 21) are both DENIED. By those motions, the plaintiff purportedly seeks relief

from the Court’s prior Order on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, even though the Court ruled in
his favor by denying that motion. It is unclear what relief the plaintiff is seeking.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2