Brown v. Houston et al

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's "Objections" (Filing Nos. 64 & 65 ) are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARVIN L. BROWN JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:16CV217

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff has filed two discovery-related “Objections” in which he objects to
Defendants’ failure to provide him with certain previously-requested information and
asks Defendants for additional evidentiary information. (Filing Nos. 64 & 65.) To the
extent Plaintiff’s Objections request additional information from Defendants, such
requests are untimely under the court’s Progression Order. (Filing No. 53.) Plaintiff
filed his Objections on October 30, 2017, and the deadline to serve interrogatories was
September 15, 2017. (Filing No. 60.)
To the extent Plaintiff’s Objections seek to compel Defendants to disclose
information previously requested, but not provided, Plaintiff is again untimely, as the
deadline to file motions to compel discovery was October 19, 2017 (Filing No. 53).
Even if Plaintiff had filed a timely motion to compel discovery, the motion is still
insufficient because Plaintiff has failed to certify that he “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see also
NECivR 7.1(i) (court will only consider discovery motion when moving party states
in motion that he personally consulted with opposing parties, sincerely attempting to
resolve differences, but they were unable to reach an accord, as well as the date, time,
and place of communication and persons who participated).
Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Objections” (Filing Nos. 64 & 65) are denied.
DATED this 8th day of December, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2