Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:10CV617-TSL-MTP
01-10-2012
MARK A. ANDERSON PLAINTIFF v. CITY OF MCCOMB, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the court on the Plaintiff's Motion [70] for Rehearing. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the applicable law, the court finds that the Plaintiff's Motion [70] should be denied.
In his motion, Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its Order [68] denying his request to compel Gregory Martin's personnel file. As noted by Plaintiff, the court's Order stated, "from the court's review, the requests at issue in the Motion to Compel [52] do not request [Mr. Martin's personnel] file." See Order [68] at 2.
While Plaintiff's Motion [52] does reference an outstanding request for Mr. Martin's personnel file (page 4, paragraph 8), the requests identified by Plaintiff as "deficient" and quoted in the Motion [52] (request numbers 10, 12, 14) do not. Plaintiff's passing reference to the outstanding request does not comply with the local rules. See L.U. Civ. R. 37(b) ("Motions raising issues concerning discovery propounded under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36, and 37, must quote verbatim each . . . request for production . . . to which the motion is addressed, and must state (1) the specific objection, (2) the grounds assigned for the objection . . . and (3) the reasons assigned as supporting the motion.") Further, as noted by Defendants, the request for Mr. Martin's file was untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A); Case Management Order [10]. Accordingly,
The motion states, "Discovery requests are also outstanding for a complete copy of Gregory Martin's personnel file with the City of McComb. Please See Docket No. 39." Motion [52] at 4.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion [70] for Rehearing is denied.
Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge