Penland v. Bowerman, 1:18-cv-648. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20191231c59
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER STRIKING INTERROGATORIES MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court upon the filing by Petitioner of a set of interrogatories purportedly directed to Penland's trial attorney, Clyde Bennett (ECF No. 54). The Interrogatories are STRICKEN for the following non-exclusive reasons: 1. Although the interrogatories are purportedly propounded on Mr. Bennett, they do not show that they have been served on him. 2. Interrogatories are a vehicle for obtaini
Summary: ORDER STRIKING INTERROGATORIES MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This habeas corpus case is before the Court upon the filing by Petitioner of a set of interrogatories purportedly directed to Penland's trial attorney, Clyde Bennett (ECF No. 54). The Interrogatories are STRICKEN for the following non-exclusive reasons: 1. Although the interrogatories are purportedly propounded on Mr. Bennett, they do not show that they have been served on him. 2. Interrogatories are a vehicle for obtainin..
More
ORDER STRIKING INTERROGATORIES
MICHAEL R. MERZ, Magistrate Judge.
This habeas corpus case is before the Court upon the filing by Petitioner of a set of interrogatories purportedly directed to Penland's trial attorney, Clyde Bennett (ECF No. 54). The Interrogatories are STRICKEN for the following non-exclusive reasons:
1. Although the interrogatories are purportedly propounded on Mr. Bennett, they do not show that they have been served on him.
2. Interrogatories are a vehicle for obtaining discovery from a party in the case. Mr. Bennet is not a party.
3. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5 prohibits the filing of discovery documents, including interrogatories.
4. Discovery is not a matter of right in a habeas corpus case; it may only be undertaken with court permission. Penland has a pending motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 38) which the Court has not yet ruled on. Indeed, Respondent has sought and obtained an extension of time to respond to that motion.
Accordingly, the Interrogatories are STRICKEN and Petitioner is ordered not to propound or file any additional discovery without court permission.
Source: Leagle
