Hawkins v. Salvation Army et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff is ordered to provide answers to the first supplemental special interrogatories by March 12, 2012. If Plaintiff fails to provide answers by the foregoing deadline, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with an order of this court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 3/1/2012.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Sherell Hawkins,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Salvation Army, Anglea Repass, David
Repass, Melissa Smith,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:11-3438-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff Sherell Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment discrimination case

against defendants on December 16, 2011. [Entry #1].

On December 22, 2011, the

court sent Plaintiff special interrogatories to be answered by her and filed with the court.
[Entry #7]. Plaintiff filed her answers to the court’s special interrogatories on January 10,
2012. [Entry #11]. The court propounded its first supplemental special interrogatories to
Plaintiff on February 6, 2012, noting in the docket entry that responses were due on
February 22, 2012. [Entry #14]. To date, the court has not received a response to the
supplemental special interrogatories. Plaintiff is ordered to provide answers to the first
supplemental special interrogatories by March 12, 2012. If Plaintiff fails to provide
answers by the foregoing deadline, this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute
and for failure to comply with an order of this court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.
Also before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for discovery. [Entry #17]. Plaintiff’s
motion requests information from defendants in connection with her lawsuit. It does not
appear from the motion that Plaintiff has submitted the requests to defendants prior to

filing her motion.

Plaintiff is advised that the proper procedure for requesting

information from defendants is contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34. Specifically, if
the court authorizes Plaintiff to proceed with this lawsuit and authorizes service of
process on defendants, then upon defendants’ appearance, the court would authorize the
commencement of discovery through issuance of a scheduling order. Thereafter, Plaintiff
could serve her discovery requests on counsel for defendants and they should not be filed
with the court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for discovery [Entry #17] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 1, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2