Wedmore v. Jorgenson et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. denying 36 Motion to Compel without prejudice; denying 38 Motion to Compel without prejudice. (BG) Distributed on 6/8/2016. (rh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Travis L. Wedmore,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Brian Jorgenson, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

Case No. 1:14-cr-149

On May 18, 2016, plaintiff filed what the court construes as a motion to compel and which
reads as follows:
I am writing to request a Court Order to obtain/have access to Institutional Records
from the NDDOCR in regards to Claims 2, 3 and 6 for my Lawsuit (Travis L.
Wedmore v. Brian Jorgenson, et. al. Case No. 1:14-cv-149).
In the Second Claim
In regards to Elton Hotain #37637 filing a “False” sexual harassment against me...
I want access to all the records kept on that incident between the dates of March
25th, 2014 until May 29th, 2014.
In regards to hanging myself ... I want access to all the records kept on that incident
between the dates of May 12th, 2014 until May 29th, 2014.
In the Third Claim:
In regards to being placed in Observation, following my suicide attempt ... I want
access to all the records kept on that incident between the dates of May 12th, 2014
until May 22nd, 2014.
In the Sixth Claim:
In regards to being found guilty of having Sexual Contact with 5 other inmates, and
being one of the “only” two inmates to be placed in Administrative Segregation ...
I want access to all the records kept on that incident between the dates of September
8th, 2014 until August 8th, 2015.
The Records will be used as evidence in my Lawsuit. They are necessary to
complete my Discoveries and Testimonies.
1

This concludes my request . . . Thank You!
(Docket No. 36) (errors in original). On June 3, 2016, plaintiff filed what the court a second motion
to compel that mirrors his first motion.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the scope of discovery as
follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things
and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable
matter.
Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part that “a party may move
for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
It is incumbent on the parties to conduct their own discovery. The court will not typically
involve itself in the discovery process unless a dispute arises between the parties that cannot be
resolved without court intervention. The court may compel a party or nonparty to comply with a
discovery request, but such an order presupposes the existence of a valid discovery request.
Here, it not entirely clear whether plaintiff served defendants with written requests for
production of documents prior to filing the motions to compel now before the court; there is nothing
in the record to indicate that defendant made any discovery demands on defendants or otherwise
conferred with them prior to filing the instant motions to compel. Absent any indication from
plaintiff that he has made a good faith effort to obtain discovery, the court is not inclined to take any
action on plaintiff’s discovery requests. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 36 and 38)

2

are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2016.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

3