Paige v. Murry et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time (#85) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (#79) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that d efendants shall furnish the declarations and/oraffidavits they offered in their Response (#83) no later than May 1, 2014.IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until May 29, 2014 to respond tothe defendants motion for summary judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/4/14. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JERRY MURRAY, et al.
Case No. 1:12-cv-40 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court are two motions by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
(#85) seeks additional time in which to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
due to discovery-related disputes. That motion will be granted.
Plaintiff’s Motion of Clarification (#79) is a response to the Court’s Order of October 29,
2013 (#77). That Order denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s denial of his request
to compel “documents or logbooks that indicate what officers were assigned and worked in
Housing Unit 2 at SECC” from September 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011, including records
that indicate in what wing the officer worked. Defendants had already produced shift schedules
from September 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010. They cite safety and security reasons for not
producing further information, and they also state that the documents implicated are
“confidential, closed records pursuant to § 217.075(3) RSMo.” They also stated that the request
is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in time and scope.
Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Clarification” in order to explain his need for the requested
documents. Plaintiff states that he wants to prove that the named defendants worked in A-Wing
during the time period between October 9 and November 12, 2010 because, when assigned to
housing unit 2, the named defendants would have been required to perform certain job duties that
would have required the defendants to see the allegedly deplorable conditions of his cell.
Further, he states that the logs would show whether the defendants had reported work orders for
other inmates’ cells, further reflecting their state of mind.
The Court ordered defendants to file a response to plaintiff’s motion (#80). The
defendants explained the difficulties inherent to supplying the requested information, but they
offered to supply affidavits from defendants Hack, Walters, and Murray regarding their
recollection as to their access to the A-Wing on the relevant dates. The Court will order
defendants to supply the offered information. Plaintiff will thus have been supplied with
numerous documents showing which defendants were present during the relevant time period.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (#85) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification (#79) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall furnish the declarations and/or
affidavits they offered in their Response (#83) no later than May 1, 2014.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until May 29, 2014 to respond to
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
day of April, 2014.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?