Toney v. Hakala et al

Filing 141

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 139 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff James I. Toney motion is DENIED. Signed by Honorable John A. Ross on 6/15/12. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES TONEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL HAKALA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10-CV-2056-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Request for
Expenses and Sanctions [ECF No. 139]. Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to
make “complete” disclosure of his medical records and respond to his Request for Production of
Documents. Plaintiff also requests the Court order Defendants to pay him $75 to cover his
expenses incurred in connection with the motion to compel and impose sanctions on Defendants
for failing to comply with this Court’s order of April 30, 2012. In response, Defendants state
they have complied with the Court’s April 30, 2012 Order by serving Plaintiff with Amended
Initial Disclosures on May 15, 2012 (Doc. No. 139-1). Defendants further state a request for
updated records from Plaintiff’s prison medical file was made as recently as April 30, 2012, and
will be supplemented upon receipt. (Id., p.4) Defendants argue Plaintiff has not specifically
identified the deficiencies in Defendants’ responses, except to claim that the responses are
evasive. Moreover, Defendants note that Plaintiff has never served them with a Request for
Production of Documents.1 Plaintiff has not filed a reply.

1

Plaintiff served Defendants with six sets of Interrogatories and six sets of Requests for
Admission.

In its April 30, 2012 Order, the Court found Defendants’ initial Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures did not provide Plaintiff with the names or contact information of those individuals
Defendants might use to support its claims or defenses. Defendants’ Amended Initial Disclosures
now identify by name each individual Defendants claim have knowledge of facts giving rise to
Plaintiff’s claims. With respect to Plaintiff’s medical records, Defendants have acknowledged
their continuing obligation to supplement their disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(e)(1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes district courts to impose sanctions upon
parties who fail to comply with discovery orders. In this case, however, Defendants have
complied with their discovery obligations.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Request for
Expenses and Sanctions [139] is DENIED.

Dated this 15th day of June, 2012.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2