From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hayward v. Douglas

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Mar 1, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0072-FJP-DLD (M.D. La. Mar. 1, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0072-FJP-DLD.

March 1, 2011


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's Motion to Compel, rec.doc. no. 154, wherein he again requests production from the defendants of all" incident reports" and "emergency reports". This motion shall be denied for the reasons stated in the Court's Order of July 18, 2010, rec.doc. no. 107, wherein the Court concluded, in response to a similar Motion to Compel, that the plaintiff had exceeded his allowable number of requests for production without obtaining leave of Court, that the plaintiff's motion did not contain a certificate of service attesting that a copy of the motion had been sent to the opposing parties, that the motion did not contain certification that the plaintiff had, "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, and that the referenced request was vague and over-broad. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Compel, rec.doc. no. 154, be and it is hereby DENIED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 1, 2011.


Summaries of

Hayward v. Douglas

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
Mar 1, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0072-FJP-DLD (M.D. La. Mar. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Hayward v. Douglas

Case Details

Full title:DANNIE R. HAYWARD, SR. (#301013) v. WARDEN WILLIE DOUGLAS, ET AL

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0072-FJP-DLD (M.D. La. Mar. 1, 2011)

Citing Cases

Wagner v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice

Furthermore, to the extent that Wagner complains that these defendants should be found responsible for their…

Sutherland v. Akin

"The law is clear that the plaintiff is not constitutionally entitled to an investigation of his complaints…