Smalley v. Gamache et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs third motion for production of documents # 81 is denied as set out above, but shall be treated by the Court and defendants as a request for production of documents, and defendants are required to respond to this discovery request and file their response as set out above by August 15, 2012. Signed by Honorable Rodney W. Sippel on 7/2/2012. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES SMALLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL GAMACHE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10CV319 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s “third motion for the same documents as out in his two previous motions for
production of documents” is not really a motion. Instead, it is a request for production of
documents which, as I have previously explained, is not a motion and should be served on
defendants but not filed with the Court. Therefore, I will order the Clerk of the Court to deny
this as a motion. However, I will not return the document to plaintiff, and I will order the
defendants to treat this motion as a request for production of documents and require them to
respond by August 15, 2012 as previously ordered. I will also order defendants to file their
written responses (but not the responsive documents) with the Court since there has been so
much prior litigation about the adequacy of defendants’ responses. The responses shall be
attached as a exhibit to a Notice of compliance with this Order.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s third motion for production of documents
[#81] is denied as set out above, but shall be treated by the Court and defendants as a request for
production of documents, and defendants are required to respond to this discovery request and
file their response as set out above by August 15, 2012.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 2nd day of July, 2012.

-2-