Conner v. Kirkegard et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Protective Order; granting 58 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 6/12/2017. Mailed to Conner (TAG)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION ANDREW DAVID CONNER, CV 15-00081-H-DLC-JTJ Plaintiff, vs. ORDER WARDEN LEROY KIRKEGARD, et al., Defendants. Pending are Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 56) and Plaintiff Andrew Conner’s (an inmate proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel) Motion to Compel (Doc. 58). Defendants are complaining that Mr. Conner served at least 200 interrogatories on Defendants and the scheduling order limits Mr. Connor to 25 interrogatories. (Doc. 57 at 2.) Defendants interpret the Court’s Scheduling Order as limiting Mr. Connor to 25 total interrogatories no matter how many Defendants have been served in the case. Mr. Connor interprets the Scheduling Order to limit him to 25 interrogatories per defendant. The Court agrees with Mr. Connor. Mr. Connor is a prisoner proceeding without counsel. Interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission are likely the only means he has of conducting discovery in this matter. Should the scheduling 1 order be interpreted in the manner that Defendants suggest, Mr. Connor would only be able to ask each Defendant two to three questions. The Court will not install such limits on a pro se prisoner’s only means of discovery. Moreover, the Court has reviewed Mr. Connor’s revised interrogatories and does not find them to be unduly burdensome. Accordingly, the Court issues the following: ORDER 1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 56) is DENIED. 2. Mr. Conner’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. Defendants’ must respond to Mr. Conner’s revised interrogatories (Doc. 57-3 at 1-2) on or before June 30, 2017. DATED this 12th day of June 2017. /s/ John Johnston John Johnston United States Magistrate 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?