Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. On August 29, 2014, the undersigned directed defendants to file and serve a statement informing the court whether they had supplemented their discovery responses as previously anticipated. ( See ECF No. 66; see also Defs.' Oppo. to Pl.'s Disc. Mtn. (ECF No. 61) filed July 16, 2014.) Plaintiff's discovery motion, filed April 16, 2014, sought further production of documents, photographs, video surveillance tapes, and other evidence. ( See ECF No. 57.) I
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. On August 29, 2014, the undersigned directed defendants to file and serve a statement informing the court whether they had supplemented their discovery responses as previously anticipated. ( See ECF No. 66; see also Defs.' Oppo. to Pl.'s Disc. Mtn. (ECF No. 61) filed July 16, 2014.) Plaintiff's discovery motion, filed April 16, 2014, sought further production of documents, photographs, video surveillance tapes, and other evidence. ( See ECF No. 57.) In..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
On August 29, 2014, the undersigned directed defendants to file and serve a statement informing the court whether they had supplemented their discovery responses as previously anticipated. (See ECF No. 66; see also Defs.' Oppo. to Pl.'s Disc. Mtn. (ECF No. 61) filed July 16, 2014.) Plaintiff's discovery motion, filed April 16, 2014, sought further production of documents, photographs, video surveillance tapes, and other evidence. (See ECF No. 57.) In their supplemental response filed September 5, 2014, defendants state in pertinent part:
The Requests for Admission and Requests for Interrogatories were previously answered by Defendants, and served on Plaintiff. Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents ha[ve] been supplemented, and Plaintiff has been prov[id]ed with the documents that exist, and that are not deemed confidential for the safety and security of the institution, or deemed privileged under state law.
(ECF No. 65 at 2.) Thus, defendants aver that they have provided plaintiff with all relevant non-privileged discovery, as required by Rule 26(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 57), is denied as having been rendered moot by defendants' supplemental discovery responses.
