OPINION

TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel (d/e 91) (Motion 91) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents (d/e 95) (Motion 95). For the reasons set forth below, Motion 91 is ALLOWED and Motion 95 is DENIED without prejudice.

I. Motion 91

The Defendants filed and served Motion 91 on June 30, 2015. The Plaintiffs were required to file a response to Motion 91 within fourteen days of service or the Court would presume that Plaintiffs had no opposition to the Motion. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). The Plaintiffs have not responded to Motion 91 as of the date of this Opinion. The Court, therefore, presumes that Plaintiffs have no objection to Motion 91. Motion 91 is ALLOWED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' objections to Defendants' Interrogatories are overruled and Plaintiffs are directed to answer Defendants' Interrogatories in full by October 30, 2015.

II. Motion 95

Motion 95 seeks to compel the production of documents. The documents are not in the possession of the individual defendants, but are held by the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Illinois Central Management Services. The Assistant Illinois Attorney General representing the Defendants in this case is in the process securing the documents from the respective agencies. Motion 95 is therefore DENIED without prejudice. The Court may allow the Plaintiffs to renew Motion 95 in the future if the documents at issue are not produced in a timely manner. Defense counsel is directed to file a status report by October 30, 2015, on the production of the documents at issue.

THEREFORE, Defendants' Motion to Compel (d/e 91) is ALLOWED and Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Documents (d/e 95) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court may allow the Plaintiffs to renew Motion 95 in the future if the documents at issue are not produced in a timely manner. Defense counsel is directed to file a status report by October 30, 2015, on the production of the documents at issue in Motion 95.