Paige v. Murry et al
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Compel (#37) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants and Witnesses by Oral Examination (#42) is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Information Regarding Subpoena Duces Tecum (#48) is GRANTED.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/3/13. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LACEY PAIGE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
JERRY MURRAY, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 1:12-cv-40 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against defendants, alleging that they
violated plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by threatening his health and safety
with regard to an alleged sewer leak in his cell.
Presently before the Court are plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#37), plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Depose Defendants and Witnesses by Oral Examination (#42), and a letter that the
Court has interpreted as a Motion for Subpoenae Duces Tecum (#48).
I.
Motion to Compel (#37)
Plaintiff moves to compel responses to his Requests for Production propounded on
defendants. However, plaintiff does not certify that he has “in good faith conferred or attempted
to confer with the person or the party failing to make disclosure … in an effort to obtain it
without court action.” Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 37(a)(1). Local Rule 37-3.04(A) provides that the
Court will not consider any motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless the motion
contains such a certification.
Even if plaintiff had included such a certification, however, it does not appear that
plaintiff’s motion would have been successful. Defendants’ objections appear to be well-taken.
In particular, plaintiff seeks documents that relate to internal workings of the prison that are not
likely to be relevant to plaintiff’s claim and, furthermore, that may compromise the security of
the prison if produced. Moreover, some of plaintiff’s requests for production sought information
that are properly posed as interrogatories (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33).
Thus, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
II.
Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants and Witnesses by Oral Examination (#42)
Next plaintiff requests that the Court appoint an authorized officer to administer
depositions of defendants and witnesses in this case. Plaintiff contends that he has attempted to
obtain discovery of pertinent documents and knowledge of witnesses by way of the discovery
process and correspondence, to no avail. However, plaintiff does not state specifically whom he
intends to depose, nor does he explain what information he seeks. Furthermore, plaintiff has not
sought leave to take depositions by written questions, which is available pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 31(a)(2). Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
III.
Motion for Information Regarding Subpoena Duces Tecum (#48)
Finally, plaintiff wrote a letter to the Clerk of the Court on March 17, 2013, requesting
the necessary forms for issuing a subpoena to obtain his medical records. Plaintiff must promptly
file a motion with the Court requesting that the Court issue a subpoena and stating (1) on whom
the subpoena should be served, and (2) the documents he seeks. Plaintiff should be as specific as
possible in his motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#37) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants
and Witnesses by Oral Examination (#42) is DENIED.
2
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Information Regarding
Subpoena Duces Tecum (#48) is GRANTED.
Dated this
3rd
day of April, 2013.
____________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?