Opinion
1:20-00081
11-12-2021
RAYMOND WATISON v. GRADY PERRY, et al.
Campbell/Holmes
ORDER
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge
The Court now addresses three pending motions that concern the pro se prisoner Plaintiff's written discovery requests to Defendants.
Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests (Docket Entry No. 28) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to provide responses to his written discovery requests (Docket Entry No. 33) is DENIED in light of Defendants' response to the motion (Docket Entry No. 35), in which they state that their responses have now been served upon Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to provide additional and more complete answers to his request for production of documents (Docket Entry No. 34) is DENIED as prematurely filed. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37.01(a), Plaintiff must informally seek to resolve the discovery dispute that is at issue prior to filing a motion to compel by conferring with counsel for Defendants in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute. Although the parties are relieved from Local Rule 37.01(b)'s obligation of filing a joint discovery dispute statement, if Plaintiff subsequently files a motion to compel, he shall include in his motion a certification of his good faith attempt at resolution.
Any party objecting to this Order may do so by filing a motion for review no later than fourteen (14) days from the date this Order is served upon the party. The objections/motion for review must be accompanied by a brief or other pertinent documents to apprise the District Judge of the basis for the objection. See Rule 72.01(a) of the Local Rules of Court. Responses to the objections/motion for review must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of the motion for review. See Rule 72.01(b) of the Local Rules of Court.
So ORDERED.