Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DICKEY v. HARRINGTON, 3:14-cv-1024-NJR-DGW. (2014)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20141219a57 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge. Now pending before the Court is the Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery filed by Plaintiff, Maeceo Dickey, on December 10, 2014 (Doc. 32) and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendants on December 16, 2014 (Doc. 35). The Motion to Compel is DENIED. In this Motion, Plaintiff generically seeks an Order compelling Defendants to answer interrogatories. It is clear from the Motion that Plaintiff merely copied a form and failed to includ
More

ORDER

DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.

Now pending before the Court is the Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery filed by Plaintiff, Maeceo Dickey, on December 10, 2014 (Doc. 32) and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendants on December 16, 2014 (Doc. 35).

The Motion to Compel is DENIED. In this Motion, Plaintiff generically seeks an Order compelling Defendants to answer interrogatories. It is clear from the Motion that Plaintiff merely copied a form and failed to include various details like the date he served interrogatories and which Defendants were served. He also has failed to sign this motion and has not attached a copy of the interrogatories that he purportedly served (although Plaintiff did submit a copy of his request to produce).

No Defendant has filed an answer to the complaint as of the date of this Order. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot have served any discovery request nor can he reasonably expect any answers. Plaintiff is informed that once Defendants have filed an answer, a scheduling order will be entered setting forth deadlines and the discovery procedure. Plaintiff is cautioned that he should not file with the Clerk of Court interrogatories or requests to produce that are served upon Defendants unless he is ordered to do so by the Court or they are related to a motion to compel. Finally, Plaintiff is WARNED that the failure to sign documents filed with the Clerk of Court may result in the striking of the document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

Defendants' Motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. Defendants' answers are due by January 16, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer