Lanier v. Henderson County Detention Center

Filing 75

ORDER denying 66 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/13/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:15-cv-262-FDW
RICARDO EDWIN LANIER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HENDERSON COUNTY DETENTION
)
CENTER, Jail Officials on duty day of incident, )
et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 66).
Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Edwin Lanier, a North Carolina state inmate currently
incarcerated at Caswell Correctional Institution, filed this action on November 25, 2015,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2016, this Court found that the allegations in
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint survived initial review. (Doc. No. 16). On January 11, 2017, the
Court entered a scheduling order, setting the deadline for discovery as May 11, 2017. (Doc. No.
62). Plaintiff filed the motion to compel on February 16, 2017, stating that he has submitted
various interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Defendants, but some of the
responses he has received are inadequate.
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as Defendants have shown in their
response to the motion to compel that, before filing the motion to compel, Plaintiff did not confer
or attempt to confer in good faith with Defendants in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute

1

before filing the motion to compel. Plaintiff, therefore, did not comply with either this Court’s
Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan or with the Court’s Local Rule 7.1(B) before filing the
pending motion to compel. Defendants have further shown that they have adequately responded
to the discovery requests at issue or that they properly objected to various discovery requests
because the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible information. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 66), is DENIED.
Signed: March 13, 2017

2