MARTIN v. FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 1:11-CV-347. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20120629b00
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2012
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ROGER B. COSBEY, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court in this action advancing various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is a motion to compel filed by the pro se Plaintiff, claiming that Defendants failed to respond to his First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket #47.) Plaintiff's motion, however, is misplaced, as the record reflects that Defendants did indeed respond to his discovery request, producing some documents and raising some objections. (Docket
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ROGER B. COSBEY, Magistrate Judge. Before the Court in this action advancing various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is a motion to compel filed by the pro se Plaintiff, claiming that Defendants failed to respond to his First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket #47.) Plaintiff's motion, however, is misplaced, as the record reflects that Defendants did indeed respond to his discovery request, producing some documents and raising some objections. (Docket ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
ROGER B. COSBEY, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court in this action advancing various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a motion to compel filed by the pro se Plaintiff, claiming that Defendants failed to respond to his First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket #47.)
Plaintiff's motion, however, is misplaced, as the record reflects that Defendants did indeed respond to his discovery request, producing some documents and raising some objections. (Docket #44); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) (explaining that a response to a document request includes producing the responsive documents or an objection to the request, including the reasons). Nor does Plaintiff identify with any particularity a specific response that is purportedly inadequate such that the Court could discern whether an order to supplement the response is necessary. See, e.g., Morris v. Ley, No. 05 C-0458, 2006 WL 2585029, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 7, 2006) (denying pro se plaintiff's motion to compel because it was "nearly impossible to ascertain which documents the plaintiff seeks to have produced").
Consequently, Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket #47) is DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal once he compares his discovery requests to the responsive documents and objections produced by Defendants.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
