VANN v. OLSON, 5:14CV00118 KGB/JTR. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20141027584
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Clayton Lamont Vann's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion") (Doc. 46). Defendants have now filed their Response (Doc. 49). The matter is ripe for disposition. Pursuant to his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of Defendants' policy and procedure for emergencies. Doc. 46 at 1. He argues that the policy should be produced as it might assist him in proving that Defendants' violated not only his constitution
Summary: ORDER J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Clayton Lamont Vann's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion") (Doc. 46). Defendants have now filed their Response (Doc. 49). The matter is ripe for disposition. Pursuant to his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of Defendants' policy and procedure for emergencies. Doc. 46 at 1. He argues that the policy should be produced as it might assist him in proving that Defendants' violated not only his constitutiona..
More
ORDER
J. THOMAS RAY, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Clayton Lamont Vann's Motion to Compel Discovery ("Motion") (Doc. 46). Defendants have now filed their Response (Doc. 49). The matter is ripe for disposition.
Pursuant to his Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of Defendants' policy and procedure for emergencies. Doc. 46 at 1. He argues that the policy should be produced as it might assist him in proving that Defendants' violated not only his constitutional rights, but their own procedures. Id. Defendants contend that, upon their receipt of Plaintiff's initial request for this policy, they asked him to narrow his request. Doc. 49 ¶ 1. They state that Plaintiff never replied to their request. Id. ¶ 2. They also contend that Plaintiff failed to confer with them in good faith — as required by Local Rule 7.2(g) — prior to filing his Motion. Id. ¶ 4. Nevertheless, they have attached OPP 508.00 — the policy which would apply if an inmate reported to the infirmary with a medical emergency. Doc. 49-1.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion should be DENIED as moot. Plaintiff should, if future discovery disputes arise, first attempt to confer with Defendants' counsel in good faith. Then, if the issue cannot be resolved between the parties, he may file a motion to compel.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
