Aunhkhotep v. Kipperstein et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel and for an order to deem facts admitted 39 is denied without prejudice, and the motion to substitute 40 is denied as moot. Signed by Sr. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 02/05/2024. (KRZ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
AUNHK RA AUNHKHOTEP,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
OFFICER JOSEPH KOPFENSTEINER, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:23 CV 540 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Court Order to
Deem Facts Admitted and for Additional Order Compelling Disclosure of
Interrogatories” [39] and “Motion to Substitute Federal Civil Procedure Rule.”
[40]. These motions will be denied without prejudice. In the motion to compel,
plaintiff does not indicate whether an order is sought because no responses have
been provided, or whether plaintiff believes the responses which were provided
were insufficient. In future discovery motions, plaintiff shall set out the nature of
dispute in the motion itself, as well as the efforts that have been made to resolve
the dispute prior to filing the motion. The Court is denying the “motion to deem
facts admitted” without prejudice at well. If plaintiff later (for example, in a
dispositive motion) seeks to rely on a fact that was admitted, plaintiff shall so state
in the motion, provide the appropriate admission, and at that point the Court will

determine whether a fact is deemed admitted. Because the Court is denying this
motion, it is likewise denying as moot the motion to substitute Rule 36 for Rule 34
in the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel and for an
order to deem facts admitted [39] is denied without prejudice, and the motion to
substitute [40] is denied as moot.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of February, 2024.

2