Pearson v. Woodson et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for discovery and service of an unknown male officer [Doc. # 15 ] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will enter a Case Management Order simultaneously herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 6/13/18. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TERRY PEARSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MYRON WOODSON,
Defendant.

No. 4:18-CV-522 JMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s request for discovery in this matter. Plaintiff requests “the
name of the unknown male corrections officer involved in the incident alleged” in this action. He
also requests service of process on this officer. The Court will deny his requests at this time.
Discovery requests are not to be filed with the Court, but should instead be submitted
between the parties. See Local Rule 26-3.02. Thus, to the extent plaintiff seeks discovery from
defendant Woodson, he should make such requests to defendant Woodson and in compliance
with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33 and 34. Requests for interrogatories, pursuant to
Rule 33, can only be made on parties; however, non-parties can be served with requests for
subpoenas pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.34.
To the extent that the parties have a discovery dispute, they are expected to confer in
person or by telephone with one another in order to resolve such disputes. See Local Rule 373.04. If they are unable to reach an accord, only then can a party file a motion with the Court
relating to the dispute. However, a motion to compel discovery must include specific information
about the date, time and manner of the good faith conference and state, with specificity, the
efforts made to resolve such dispute. Id.

The Court has reviewed the information in defendant Woodson’s response to plaintiff’s
motion for discovery and found that defendant has identified one of the men on duty with Mr.
Woodson during the time in question in this lawsuit – Mr. Brice Simmons. Defense counsel has
not identified where Mr. Brice Simmons regularly works or how plaintiff should get in contact
with Mr. Simmons.
It appears, from the exhibits attached to Mr. Woodson’s response brief, that there is at
least one other officer in the pictures provided by Mr. Woodson to the Court and plaintiff. Mr.
Woodson has stated in his response brief that he is unaware of the third correctional officer’s
name and identifying information. However, counsel for Mr. Woodson has indicated that
defendant will likely file a motion for summary judgment at some point in the future.
Presumably, defendant Woodson will use some of the documentary evidence from the video
stills attached to his response brief.
The Court will remind defendant Woodson that to the extent he seeks to use evidence in
his dispositive motion that he has failed to turn over in discovery, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.26 or
34, and that has in fact been asked for and is discoverable, such evidence may or may not be
available for his own use as exhibits to a dispositive motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P.37. Both parties
should take care to act in compliance with the Federal and Local Rules, as well as this Court’s
Case Management Order.
In conclusion, as there is no identifying information available to effectuate service on
another defendant at this time, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion relating to discovery and
service of an “unknown male officer,” without prejudice. The Court will simultaneously enter a
Case Management Order in this action herewith.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for discovery and service of an
unknown male officer [Doc. #15] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will enter a Case Management Order
simultaneously herewith.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2018.

/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3