Adams v. Jones, 3:16-cv-105-J-32JRK. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180419a64
Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES R. KLINDT , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 56; Motion) is DENIED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules 3.01(a), 3.01(g), and 3.04(a), Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to include a memorandum of legal authority, 1 failed to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing t
Summary: ORDER JAMES R. KLINDT , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 56; Motion) is DENIED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules 3.01(a), 3.01(g), and 3.04(a), Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to include a memorandum of legal authority, 1 failed to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing th..
More
ORDER
JAMES R. KLINDT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 56; Motion) is DENIED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 37(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules 3.01(a), 3.01(g), and 3.04(a), Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to include a memorandum of legal authority,1 failed to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the Motion in an attempt to resolve the disputed issues, and failed to include
[a] quotation in full of each interrogatory . . . or request for production to which the motion is addressed; each of which shall be followed immediately by quotation in full of the objection and grounds therefor as stated by the opposing party; or the answer or response which is asserted to be insufficient, immediately followed by a statement of the reason the motion should be granted.
Local Rule 3.04(a).
Defendants Jones, Kelly, and Twiggs' response2 to Plaintiff's Motion indicates they have been responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests. See Defendants' Response (Doc. 57). Despite proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is required to adhere to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) ("[O]nce a pro se IFP litigant is in court, he is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). The Court encourages Plaintiff to communicate via letter with counsel for Defendants to resolve any outstanding discovery disputes.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff includes in his motion a section titled "Authority," in which he cites to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 37. See Motion at 2. However, Plaintiff does not include points of law or authority supporting the specific relief he seeks with respect to the individual discovery requests at issue.
2. Defendant Jonas has not filed a response.
Source: Leagle
