Green v. Sneath et al

Filing 89

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Pltf's motion 88 to deem MIL 82 as unopposed GRANTED based on defts' failure to oppose...; 2. Denying MIL 82 w/ re: defts' responses to doc production requests 1-2 & 5-6 as responses deemed a dequate.; 3. MIL 82 conditionally denied w/ re: defts' responses to doc production requests 3 & 4 - defts afforded 15 days from date of this order to provide pltf responses to thee requests - failure to do so will result in motion being granted w/ re: docs related to these requests. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 04/06/11. (ki)

Green v. Sneath et al

Doc. 89

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TYRONE GREEN, Plaintiff v. DET. SNEATH, et al., Defendants

: : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-0154 (Judge Conner)

ORDER AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2011, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion in limine (Doc. 82), and plaintiff's motion to deem his motion in limine as unopposed (Doc. 88), and it appearing that plaintiff seeks to prohibit defendants from producing certain documentary evidence at trial based upon their failure to comply with his request for production of documents (Doc. 83), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to deem his motion in limine as unopposed (Doc. 88) is GRANTED based upon defendants' failure to oppose the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.6. The motion in limine (Doc. 82) is DENIED with respect to defendants' responses to document production requests 1-2 (Doc. 83-1, at 7) and 5-6 (Doc. 83-1, at 8-9), as the responses to the requests are deemed adequate.

2.

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

The motion in limine (Doc. 82) is CONDITIONALLY DENIED with respect to defendants' responses to document production requests 3 and 4 (Doc. 83-1, at 8). Defendants are afforded fifteen days from the date of this order to provide to plaintiff responses to these requests. 1 Failure to do so will result in the motion being granted with respect to the documents related to these requests.

S/ Christopher C. Conner CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

The polestar of discovery is relevance to a claim or defense. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(a) states that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
1