Hartshorn v. Sievert et al

Filing 41

ORDER re 40 Letter/Motion to Compel (cc: all counsel and via US Mail to Henry Hartshorn)(Griesbach, William)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN HENRY W. HARTSHORN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 17-C-98 MICHAEL L. SIEVERT, et al., Defendants. ORDER Plaintiff Henry Hartshorn filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter asking the court to “find out” why the defendants have not responded to his March 12, 2018 discovery requests. The court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion to compel. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied because the defendants’ responses are not considered untimely at this point. Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the party to whom a discovery request is directed has thirty days after being served with the request to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). If Plaintiff does not receive the defendants’ responses to his discovery requests, he should attempt to consult with defendants’ counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Civil L.R. 37 (E.D. Wis). He may refile his motion if he is unable to resolve the dispute. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. Dated this 11th day of April, 2018. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge United States District Court

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?