Lewis v. Hawkins et al (TV1)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 57 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 6/29/17. (copy mailed to Plaintiff) (JBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
PAUL WILLIAM LEWIS,
KEITH HAWKINS, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. 57], filed on June 26, 2017.
In his Motion, the Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant Hawkins to respond to the
Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Production of Documents, which were served on May
19, 2017. Defendant Hawkins responded [Doc. 60] that the Motion should be denied because it
fails to include a certification that the Plaintiff conferred in good faith with Defendant Hawkins
before filing the Motion. In addition, Defendant Hawkins states that the Plaintiff failed to comply
with Section 3(j) of the Scheduling Order, which requires parties to take certain steps before filing
motions regarding discovery disputes. Finally, Defendant Hawkins states that his responses to the
discovery requests are drafted and that counsel is simply awaiting receipt of a notarized affidavit
from Defendant Hawkins regarding the accuracy of the responses. Defendant Hawkins states that
his discovery responses along with the affidavit will be mailed to the Plaintiff immediately upon
receipt, which should occur within the next week.
The Court notes that Section 3(j) of the Scheduling Order [Doc. 21] requires parties to take
certain steps before filing motions regarding discovery disputes. First, the parties are to meet and
confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they shall
attempt to resolve the dispute by conference with the Magistrate Judge. The Scheduling Order
provides that “[i]f and only if, the parties’ dispute is unresolved following the conference with the
Magistrate Judge, the parties may file appropriate written motions with the Court . . .”
“[a]ny written motions regarding discovery shall include a certification of compliance with steps
one (1) and (2) . . .” In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) requires that the movant
include a certification that he/she conferred in good faith with the other party before filing a motion
The Court finds that the Plaintiff did not follow the procedure set forth in the Scheduling
Order and did not include a good faith certification as required by Rule 37. This is not the first
time that the Plaintiff’s Motion has been deficient. In its previous Order [Doc. 53], this Court
reminded the Plaintiff that he must follow the procedure outlined in the Scheduling Order and that
he must include the certification required under Rule 37(a)(1). The Court ADMONISHES the
Plaintiff that his pro se status is not a reason to ignore the rules and that the failure to follow the
Court’s Orders or the Federal Rules will not be excused. Accordingly, the Court finds the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. 57] not well-taken, and it is DENIED. If the Plaintiff does
not receive Defendant Hawkins’s discovery responses by July 10, 2017, he may contact Chambers
to schedule a conference with the undersigned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?