Alston v. Mississippi Department of Transportation

Filing 60

ORDER AMENDING ORDER 56 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 7/5/17. (ncb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

JASON D ALSTON
V.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 4:16CV00236-DMB-JMV

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEFENDANT

ORDER AMENDING ORDER [56]
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion [52] to compel initial disclosures. The court
failed to address Plaintiff’s reply brief in the original of this order because though it was
timely filed, it was not docketed until after the original order was entered. Having now
considered all submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the court rules as
follows:
Plaintiff essentially argues defendant has failed to provide initial disclosures that comply
with the requirements of FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)–quite the contrary of defendant’s assertion that
Plaintiff’s claim is no disclosures were provided. Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice
because all discovery is currently stayed in this matter. And, Plaintiff provides no cause why this
court should grant him relief from the prior Order [45] which stayed discovery. Once the stay is
lifted, Plaintiff may re-urge the motion (if necessary). The undersigned notes it appears Plaintiff
pointed out putative deficiencies in defendant’s disclosures, from all appearances, for the first
time in his reply brief. Plaintiff is advised that any new motion should include details of why the

disclosures fail to comply with the rule and also details of good faith attempts made, prior to the
filing of the motion, to resolve the specified deficiencies.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2017.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. Magistrate Judge

2