Filed: Jun. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER H. BRENT BRENNENSTUHL , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are the motions of Plaintiff Eric Todd Lyvers to compel discovery responses from Defendant James Newkirk, DN 68, and from Defendant Jordan Jones, DN 69. The Defendants have filed responses at DN 74 and 73. There has been no reply. Mr. Lyvers states in his motion that he submitted requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents to the Defendants and that, in response,
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER H. BRENT BRENNENSTUHL , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are the motions of Plaintiff Eric Todd Lyvers to compel discovery responses from Defendant James Newkirk, DN 68, and from Defendant Jordan Jones, DN 69. The Defendants have filed responses at DN 74 and 73. There has been no reply. Mr. Lyvers states in his motion that he submitted requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents to the Defendants and that, in response, t..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. BRENT BRENNENSTUHL, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are the motions of Plaintiff Eric Todd Lyvers to compel discovery responses from Defendant James Newkirk, DN 68, and from Defendant Jordan Jones, DN 69. The Defendants have filed responses at DN 74 and 73. There has been no reply.
Mr. Lyvers states in his motion that he submitted requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for production of documents to the Defendants and that, in response, the Defendants only provided "`Smoke Screen' answers and Excuses for Answers" (DN 68, p. 1; DN 69, p. 1). His motions reproduce several of his discovery requests, but he does not discuss the Defendants' responses or the basis for his belief that the responses are insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Where a Plaintiff fails to explain how a discovery response is inadequate, a motion to compel will be denied. Hibbs v. Marcum, No. 3:16-CV-146-TBR-LLK, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26725, *15 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2018).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to compel, DN 68 and 69, are DENIED.
