Ciesla v. Christian et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 28 MOTION to Compel filed by Defendant C. B. Christian; motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Christian's Motion to Compel (Doc. 28) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall a nswer Defendant Christian's Interrogatories and fully respond to Defendant Christian's Requests for Production no later than August 24, 2015. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order could result in the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d). Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 8/17/15. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

ANDREW CIESLA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TROOPER C.B. CHRISTIAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14CV00165 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Trooper
Christopher Christian, Officer D. McDaniel, Pemiscot County, Missouri, and City of Hayti,
Missouri, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, and a Missouri
state law claim for malicious prosecution. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Presently pending before the Court is Defendant Christian’s Motion to Compel. (Doc.
28.) Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s Motion and the time for doing so has expired.
In his Motion, Defendant states that he served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and Requests
for production on June 9, 2015. (Def’s Exs. A, B.) Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s responses
were due on July 13, 2015, pursuant to Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant states that, to date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to those Interrogatories and Requests
for Production. Defendant states that he contacted counsel for Plaintiff via email on July 30,
2015, and via telephone on August 4, 2015, to discuss Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the
discovery requests, but counsel for Plaintiff has not responded to either of those
1

communications. Counsel for Defendant certifies that he has in good faith attempted to confer
with Plaintiff in an effort to obtain responses to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production
without court action. Defendant requests that the Court enter an Order compelling discovery
responses pursuant to Rule 37(a).
Rule 37(a)(3)(B) allows a party seeking discovery to move for an order compelling an
answer or production. Any motion concerning discovery, such as a motion to compel, must
comply with Local Rule 3.04(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). These rules
require that a discovery motion include a statement of a good-faith attempt to resolve the
discovery dispute prior to the filing of the motion. Defendant’s Motion contains such a
statement. (Doc. 28, & 6.)
The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Compel and will direct Plaintiff to answer
Defendant’s Interrogatories and respond fully to Defendant’s Requests for Production. Plaintiff
is cautioned that his failure to obey this Order could result in the imposition of sanctions
pursuant to Rule 37(d,) including the dismissal of his case with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Christian’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 28) is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall answer Defendant Christian’s
Interrogatories and fully respond to Defendant Christian’s Requests for Production no later than
August 24, 2015. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order could result in the imposition of
sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d).
/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of August, 2015.
2