Marcum v. Duchak et al

Filing 121

ORDER - Accordingly, Defendant Sheriff Dave Duchaks Motion to Strike (Doc. # 112 ) is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 6/10/2020. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
TED MARCUM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHERIFF DAVE DUCHAK, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:17-cv-00437
District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

ORDER
Defendant Sheriff Dave Duchak has filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. #112) seeking
an Order striking pro se Plaintiff Ted Marcum’s Response to Discovery (Doc. #110).
Defendant contends that an Order striking Plaintiff’s Response is warranted under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(A).
Rule 5(d)(1)(A) provides that initial disclosure (under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2)) and
certain discovery requests and responses “must not be filed until they are used in the
proceeding or the court orders filing ….” This includes, in part, answers to
interrogatories, responses to requests for documents, and responses to requests for
admission. Id.
Plaintiff violated Rule 5(d)(1)(A) by filing many documents in response to
Defendant’s discovery requests. Rule 5(d)(1)(A), however, does not mandate striking
improperly filed discovery responses. Plaintiff’s discovery materials, moreover, work no
prejudice upon Defendant’s ability to litigate his case especially because the presence of

Plaintiff’s responses in the record do not relieve him of his obligations to answer
Defendant’s interrogatories and respond to Defendant’s requests for production of
documents as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) and 34(b), respectfully.
Accordingly, Defendant Sheriff Dave Duchak’s Motion to Strike (Doc. #112) is
denied.
June 10, 2020

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge

2