Filed: Oct. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 89) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Guillermo Cruz Trujillo ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel. (ECF No. 89). 1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to answer interrogatories and failed to produce documents. On September 12, 2019, Defendants filed their opposi
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 89) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Guillermo Cruz Trujillo ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel. (ECF No. 89). 1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to answer interrogatories and failed to produce documents. On September 12, 2019, Defendants filed their opposit..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
(ECF NO. 89)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel. (ECF No. 89).1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to answer interrogatories and failed to produce documents.
On September 12, 2019, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 96). Defendants argue that the discovery requests Plaintiff is attempting to compel responses to were served prior to the Court opening discovery. Additionally, Plaintiff provided no evidence that he served the discovery requests before filing his motions to compel, and Defendants were unaware of the requests (but in a showing of good faith will respond to the discovery requests within 45 days of their service). Finally, Defendants ask the Court to "caution Plaintiff that subsequent meritless motions may result in sanctions or an award of costs." (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Plaintiff's motions will be denied. Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants did not respond to his discovery requests, but no response could have been due at the time Plaintiff filed his motions to compel. The Court opened discovery following the scheduling conference on July 29, 2019. (ECF No. 86, p. 1). Parties have forty-five days after a request is served to respond to that request. (Id. at 2). The Court received Plaintiff's motions to compel on September 9, 2019. (ECF No. 89). Thus, if Plaintiff served his discovery requests on July 29, 2019 (and there is no evidence that he did), the motions to compel were premature. Alternatively, if Plaintiff filed his discovery requests prior to July 29, 2019, the discovery requests were premature and Defendants were under no obligation to respond.
As Defendants request, the Court warns Plaintiff that meritless motions may result in sanctions or an award of costs. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 16(f), 26(g), & 37.
Based on the foregoing IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to compel are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
