From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doolittle v. Holmes

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Apr 21, 2009
CIVIL ACTION, NO. 06-0986-RET-CN (M.D. La. Apr. 21, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION, NO. 06-0986-RET-CN.

April 21, 2009


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, rec.doc. no. 65. This motion is opposed.

Considering that the plaintiff has not represented in his motion that he has, "in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action," as mandated by Rule 37(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this motion shall be denied as premature. Accordingly,

The Court further notes, without deciding, that the defendants appear to have adequately responded to the plaintiff's discovery. Specifically, it appears that the defendants have provided to the plaintiff the requested written prison regulations and national standards governing the allowance of exercise to inmates on administrative backlog, and it appears that the provision of the plaintiff's medical records from August, 2006 to September, 2007, is a reasonable response inasmuch as the plaintiff complains of events occurring in late 2006, making his medical records for 2005 (which he requests) irrelevant to this proceeding.

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, rec.doc. no. 65, be and it is hereby DENIED AS PREMATURE.


Summaries of

Doolittle v. Holmes

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Apr 21, 2009
CIVIL ACTION, NO. 06-0986-RET-CN (M.D. La. Apr. 21, 2009)
Case details for

Doolittle v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DOOLITTLE (#109680) v. SGT. HERMAN HOLMES, ET AL

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

Date published: Apr 21, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION, NO. 06-0986-RET-CN (M.D. La. Apr. 21, 2009)