Perkins v. Hininger et al

Filing 121

ORDER Granting 114 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on January 29, 2025. (hlb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ________________________________________________________________ MILTON KEITH PERKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 23-cv-1178-SHM-tmp ) CORECIVIC, INC., and OLLIE ) HERRON, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ________________________________________________________________ Before the court by order of reference is defendants CoreCivic, Inc. and Ollie Herron’s Motion to Compel, filed on November 11, 2024. (ECF Nos. 114, 115.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, plaintiff Milton Keith Perkins had until November 25, 2024 to file his response. See L.R. 7.2(a)(2). Perkins did not respond by that deadline, and to date, has not responded to defendants’ motion. Under Local Rule 7.2, “[f]ailure to respond timely to any motion . . . may be deemed good grounds for granting the motion.” Id. Because Perkins has failed to respond, the undersigned hereby GRANTS defendants’ Motion to Compel. Perkins is ordered, within 14 days, to: (1) verify his prior responses to defendants’ interrogatories in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(5); (2) provide full and complete responses to defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18; and (3) provide full and complete responses to defendants’ requests for production. The court is mindful that plaintiff’s counsel, both in communications with counsel for defendants and in a subsequently filed motion, have expressed difficulty in maintaining consistent communication with Perkins. (See ECF No. 114-6 at PageID 115-16; ECF No. 116 at PageID 122.) However, Perkins has now had over six months to responses. correct Although or otherwise the court prepare declines sufficient discovery to costs assess and attorneys’ fees against Perkins at this time, Perkins is warned that his continued failure to cooperate in discovery and comply with court orders could result in future sanctions, including attorneys’ fees and/or the sanction of dismissal of his complaint with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Tu M. Pham _____________ _________ TU M. PHAM Chief United States Magistrate Judge January 29, 2025__________ _________ Date - 2 -

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?