Busby v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
47
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 46 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/28/2015. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PATTIE BUSBY,
Plaintiff,
-
vs
:
Case No. 3:14-cv-410
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
-
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
:
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 46).
She attaches thereto the Responses and Objections of the Bank of America Defendants to her
Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, and Interrogatories, served on her on May 4,
2015 (PageID 1170-72). Those requests for discovery are all embodied in one document served
on the Bank of America Defendants on March 31, 2015, and also attached (PageID 1173-79).
Thus Mrs. Busby properly waited until after the March 26, 2015, scheduling conference to
propound discovery.
Defendants provided no discovery, but instead objected that the Magistrate Judge had
filed a case-dispositive Report and Recommendations on April 3, 2015. They indicated they
would respond more particularly if Judge Rose rejects the report (PageID 1171).
1
Mrs. Busby brings her Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. That Rule provides in pertinent
part that a motion under the Rule “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.” The instant Motion contains no certification to that
effect and is denied on that basis, without prejudice to its renewal with proper certification after
Judge Rose rules on the pending Report and Supplemental Report (Doc. Nos. 31, 36).
Mrs. Busby takes the occasion of her Motion to note that she “is also troubled by the
vigor with which a litigant accused Merz of wrongdoing in Newsome v. Merz, 17 Fed. Appx. 343
(6th Cir. 2001).” The Magistrate Judge would call to her attention that at the very end of its
opinion, the Sixth Circuit found Mr. Newsome’s allegations so frivolous that it invited the
Magistrate Judge to file a bill of costs and attorney fees. That was done and sanctions were
awarded by the panel against Mr. Newsome, who, because of this and other abuses of the judicial
system, is enjoined from filing cases in this Court in forma pauperis.
May 28, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
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?