Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McGOWAN v. SHEARING, 3:14-cv-14-NJR-DGW. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20150909b00 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER DONALD G. WILKERSON , Magistrate Judge . Now pending before the Court are the Motion Giving Notice of Denial of Access to the Court filed by Plaintiff, Michael McGowan, on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 150) and the Motion for Clarification filed by Plaintiff on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 151). The Motion Giving Notice of Denial of Access is MOOT. Plaintiff does not seek any relief by way of this motion that is relevant to the case at bar. The Motion for Clarification is DENIED. The Order referre
More

ORDER

Now pending before the Court are the Motion Giving Notice of Denial of Access to the Court filed by Plaintiff, Michael McGowan, on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 150) and the Motion for Clarification filed by Plaintiff on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 151).

The Motion Giving Notice of Denial of Access is MOOT. Plaintiff does not seek any relief by way of this motion that is relevant to the case at bar.

The Motion for Clarification is DENIED. The Order referred to by Plaintiff, entered on April 20, 2015 (Doc. 126) speaks for itself.

However, in light of the number of discovery disputes in this matter and Plaintiff's filings regarding such disputes, the Court notes that Plaintiff Motions (Docs. 91 and 92), notwithstanding their titles, were essentially Motions to Compel. This Court directed the IDOC Defendants to respond to various discovery (outlined in these motions and elsewhere) and file the same with the Court. Defendants filed their responses on May 20, 2015 (Doc. 145). To the extent that those responses are inadequate, Plaintiff should have raised such issues at the June 9, 2015 conference. Plaintiff states that he did not have the response in front of him at the conference; however, it is apparent that he did have a copy of the responses prior to the hearing. Plaintiff further was instructed that, at the June 9, 2015 hearing, "the parties should be prepared to discuss any outstanding discovery disputes" (Doc. 126). To the extent that the discovery responses are now objectionable (and Plaintiff does not specify which responses he believes are inadequate), such arguments have been waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer