Eddowes v. Director of State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 52 MOTION to Compel filed by Shane Eddowes, 53 MOTION for Discovery filed by Shane Eddowes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 15, 2018. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHANE EDDOWES,
Plaintiff
v.
MARK GARMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:18-CV-125

(Judge Caputo)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case is a civil rights action brought by a federal prisoner. The plaintiff
has now filed a documents styled as a motion to compel or for discovery, (Docs. 52
and 53), which are essentially identical to a prior filings by Eddowes made on
September 17, 2018, and October 5, 2018, and in fact are simply requests for
production of documents under Rule 34 that has been served upon the defendants.
As we have previously stated, the plaintiff is advised that no motion is
required to request production of documents. Rather under federal practice the
plaintiff Amust direct his discovery requests to defense counsel, and only after a
dispute has arisen, file a motion to compel.@ White v. Bledsoe, CIV.
3:CV-08-01388, 2008 WL 4793737 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2008). Moreover the party
receiving the request for production of documents has 30 days in which to respond.

1

Therefore, the defendants are not delinquent in any response to Eddowes’ prior
discovery demands at this time. Accordingly, these pleadings will be construed as
yet another request for production and the defendants are instructed to respond in
accordance with Rule 34, lodging any answers and objections they deem
appropriate. However, because no motion is needed authorizing the plaintiff to take
this initial step in the discovery process these motions for an order compelling this
discovery (Docs. 52 and 53) are DENIED.
So ordered this 15th day of October, 2018.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

2