Garvin v. Sykes, CV418-109. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190122798
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Pro se plaintiff Biron Garvin, an inmate at Coffee Correctional Facility, has filed a motion to compel further responses to document requests he has served on defendants. Doc. 18. Defendants have responded, representing that they had produced all responsive materials they were aware of at the time of their initial response. A subsequent search occasioned by the motion revealed additional responsive material, which has also been produced. See do
Summary: ORDER JAMES E. GRAHAM , Magistrate Judge . Pro se plaintiff Biron Garvin, an inmate at Coffee Correctional Facility, has filed a motion to compel further responses to document requests he has served on defendants. Doc. 18. Defendants have responded, representing that they had produced all responsive materials they were aware of at the time of their initial response. A subsequent search occasioned by the motion revealed additional responsive material, which has also been produced. See doc..
More
ORDER
JAMES E. GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Biron Garvin, an inmate at Coffee Correctional Facility, has filed a motion to compel further responses to document requests he has served on defendants. Doc. 18. Defendants have responded, representing that they had produced all responsive materials they were aware of at the time of their initial response. A subsequent search occasioned by the motion revealed additional responsive material, which has also been produced. See doc. 20 at 1-4; see also doc. 22 at 3 (representing that defendants "out of an abundance of caution, searched their database an additional time to verify there is no remaining" responsive material). Given defendants' representation that they have produced all responsive material, the motion to compel is moot. Accordingly, it is DENIED. Doc. 18.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff identified the defendants as "Corporal Sykes" and "Sergeant Fowler." See doc. 1 at 1. Defendants have, however, provided their correct ranks. See doc. 22 at 1. The Clerk is DIRECTED to correct the docket and all future pleadings shall conform.
Source: Leagle
