Savage v. Troutt et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 71 Third Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendant is directed to mail Plaintiff another copy of his counsel's letter to Plaintiff at his current address of record. The Court also modifies the First Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 64 ) as follows: All motions for summary judgment or other dispositive motions must be filed by February 9, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B Goodwin on 01/18/2017. (jb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KENT G. SAVAGE,
JEFFERY TROUTT et al.,
Case No. CIV-15-670-HE
This matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s third Motion to Compel
Discovery (Doc. No. 71), in which Plaintiff asks the Court to direct the sole remaining
Defendant to “immediately provide Plaintiff with adequate and sufficient responses to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests.” Pl.’s Mot. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff objects to several
responses in which Defendant Troutt simply refers Plaintiff to an “attached affidavit” or
to Plaintiff’s “medical records produced” by Defendant. See generally id. at 2-3, 5-7, 910, 13-17; Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 71-1) at 4-5, 7-11. Plaintiff also objects to
Defendant Troutt’s assertions that several of Plaintiff’s proffered interrogatories and
requests for admission are “vague,” “duplicative,” or “not likely to lead to relevant
information.” See generally Pl.’s Mot. at 2-16; Pl.’s Mot. Ex. 1, at 4-11.
Plaintiff’s motion does not contain the required “certification that the movant has
in good faith conferred 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); cf. Taylor v. Dist. of
Colo. Safeway, Inc., 116 F. App’x 976, 977 (10th Cir. 2004) (noting that “pro se litigants
are subject to the same procedural rules as everyone else,” including those governing
discovery) (citing Creative Gifts, Inc. v. UFO, 235 F.3d 540, 549 (10th Cir. 2000)).
However, Defendant Troutt notes in his response that Plaintiff “filed a letter seeking
additional information” regarding specific objections on November 30, 2016, and that
Defendant’s counsel has “communicated via letter” Defendant’s reasons for certain
objections and explaining why counsel referred Plaintiff “to his medical records and
Defendant Troutt’s affidavit in response to other requests.” Def.’s Resp. (Doc. No. 73) at
2; see also Pl.’s Letter (Doc. No. 68) at 1 (filed Nov. 30, 2016) (citing Defendant Troutt’s
responses to “Admissions number 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, and 20” and to “all” of Plaintiff’s
proffered interrogatories).1 Defendant also states that, “Counsel also advised Plaintiff to
review the discovery responses in light of said correspondence and to advise if further
response was still required.” Def.’s Resp. at 2. Defendant notes, however, that “it is
unclear” whether Plaintiff received counsel’s letter “[i]n light of Plaintiff’s recent
transfer” to another prison. Id.; see also Notice of Address Change (Doc. No. 72) at 1
(filed Jan. 9, 2017). Defendant further states that he “does not object to an extension of
deadlines in the interest of fairness if the Court deems it necessary.” Id.
The Court finds that it would be premature to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel in
light of Defendant’s response and apparent attempt to resolve this discovery dispute
without court action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel also includes Defendant Troutt’s responses to Requests for
Admissions No. 7 and No. 11. See Pl.’s Mot. at 2-3, 5.
No. 71) is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant is directed to mail Plaintiff another
copy of his counsel’s letter to Plaintiff at his current address of record.
For good cause shown, the Court also modifies the First Scheduling Order (Doc.
No. 64) as follows:
All motions for summary judgment or other dispositive motions must be
filed by February 9, 2017
All other deadlines and provisions remain in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2017.
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?