Earwood v. Kelley, 3:19-cv-47-DPM. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20200206683
Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . Instead of responding to Defendants' discovery requests — or pointing out the specific requests he thinks are objectionable-Earwood has filed a blanket objection. No. 29. The objection is overruled. Most, if not all, of the information Defendants seek is within Earwood's knowledge. No. 25-1. The discovery deadline hasn't passed. No. 21 at 1. And Earwood's pro se status doesn't excuse him from following the Rules of Civil Procedure and part
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . Instead of responding to Defendants' discovery requests — or pointing out the specific requests he thinks are objectionable-Earwood has filed a blanket objection. No. 29. The objection is overruled. Most, if not all, of the information Defendants seek is within Earwood's knowledge. No. 25-1. The discovery deadline hasn't passed. No. 21 at 1. And Earwood's pro se status doesn't excuse him from following the Rules of Civil Procedure and parti..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
Instead of responding to Defendants' discovery requests — or pointing out the specific requests he thinks are objectionable-Earwood has filed a blanket objection. No. 29. The objection is overruled. Most, if not all, of the information Defendants seek is within Earwood's knowledge. No. 25-1. The discovery deadline hasn't passed. No. 21 at 1. And Earwood's pro se status doesn't excuse him from following the Rules of Civil Procedure and participating in discovery. No. 3 at 1. In mid-January, Defendants moved to dismiss. No. 30. Earwood has not responded; and his time to do so has expired. This is a final warning: if Earwood doesn't respond to Defendants' requests by 26 February 2020, then the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss. No. 30; LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2); FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
