Durham v. Niffenegger et al

Filing 82

ORDER Plaintiff's motion 80 is therefore STRICKEN. Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the Court's Standing Order as referenced herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/28/2021. (art)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DAVID DURHAM, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-91 McFarland, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs. ORDER DETECTIVE JERRY NIFFENEGGER, et. al. Defendants. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff David Durham’s motion to compel (Doc. 80). The Court’s Standing Order, at §§ I.D.2-3, sets forth its procedures regarding motions relating to discovery. The Court does not entertain discovery motions until the parties have satisfied those procedures. First, the parties must attempt to resolve the dispute by extrajudicial means, which the Court defines to include both in-writing and telephonic efforts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.1. If unsuccessful, the parties are to contact the Court’s Courtroom Deputy to schedule an informal discovery conference. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 80) is therefore STRICKEN. Plaintiff is ORDERED to comply with the Court’s Standing Order as referenced herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4/28/2021 Date: _________________________ __________________________________ Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

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?