Lunn v. Ragland et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 31 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 2/5/2013.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brandon J. Lunn,

Plaintiff,
v.
Sgt. Ragland, Lt. Robertson,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.

5:12-2706-MGL-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging violations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the court on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on January 11, 2013. ECF No. 31. On January 14, 2013,
Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion contending that Plaintiff did not serve
them with discovery prior to filing his Motion to Compel. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff filed a reply to
Defendants’ response on January 28, 2013. ECF No. 37.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that if a party fails to respond to discovery,
the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production. The decision to grant
or to deny a motion to compel discovery rests within the broad discretion of the trial court. See
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cir. 1995)
(holding the “Court affords a district court substantial discretion in managing discovery and
reviews the denial or granting of a motion to compel discovery for abuse of discretion.”)
(internal citation omitted); LaRouche v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc., 780 F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir.
1986) (holding “[a] motion to compel discovery is addressed to the sound discretion of the
district court.”).

Because Plaintiff did not serve Defendants with discovery prior to filing his Motion to
Compel and Defendants have indicated that they “will treat Plaintiff’s Motion as Interrogatories
and will respond accordingly,” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 31, is denied. Plaintiff is
advised that Defendants have “30 days after being served” with discovery to respond or object to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 5, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2