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)
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?