Alvarado v. Mr. Sharpe et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 58 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 1/20/2017. Mailed to Alvarado (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
THOMAS ALVARADO,

CV 15-00005-GF-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

WARDEN CROSSROAD
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Thomas Alvarado, a prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a
document entitled “Plaintiff’s Appeal to Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Answers
to Interrogatories.” (Doc. 58.) The motion is construed as a motion to compel and
as such it will be denied.
Mr. Alvarado failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1), D.Mont. L.R.
7.1(c)(1), and D.Mont. L.R. 26.3(c). As set forth in the Court’s Amended
Scheduling Order,
The Court will not consider motions to compel or other discovery
disputes unless the moving party complies with Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1) (“The motion must include a certification that the movant has
in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party
failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without
court action.”); D. Mont. L.R. 7.1(c)(1) (“The text of the motion must
state that other parties have been contacted and state whether any
party objects to the motion.”); and D. Mont. L.R. 26.3(c) (“The Court
1

will deny any discovery motion unless the parties have conferred
concerning all disputed issues before the motion is filed.”).
(Amd. Sch. Ord., Doc. 33 at 7.) These rules require Mr. Alvarado to contact
opposing counsel and discuss his discovery issues prior to filing any discovery
motions. Mr. Alvarado was advised in the Court’s September 26, 2016 Order that
he could not file any further discovery motions until he has complied with these
rules. (Doc. 49.) There is no indication that Mr. Alvarado complied with these
rules and Defendants represent that he failed to comply.
Second, Mr. Alvarado failed to comply with Local Rule 26.3(c)(2) which
requires all discovery motions to attach as an exhibit the full text of the discovery
sought and the full text of the response.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT “Plaintiff’s Appeal to
Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Answers to Interrogatories” (Doc. 58) as construed
as a motion to compel is DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of January 2017.

/s/ John Johnston
John Johnston
United States Magistrate Judge

2