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)

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