Lawrence v. Artuz

Full title: ROBERT A. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER P. ARTUZ, et al Defendants

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 16, 2001

00 Civ. 0721 (JSM) (HEP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2001)

Opinion

00 Civ. 0721 (JSM) (HEP)

February 16, 2001

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff has filed a notice of motion dated August 23, 2000 seeking to compel responses to interrogatories and document requests. The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal.

It appears that plaintiff filed its motion to compel on the same day it served its interrogatories and document requests. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that once interrogatories and document requests are served, the receiving party has thirty (30) days to respond. Unless and until the receiving party objects to the discovery requests or otherwise fails to comply with the discovery requests, there is no basis for the Court to order that discovery proceed. Thus, it appears that plaintiff's motion to compel is premature.

Accordingly, plaintiff's August 23, 2000 motion to compel is denied without prejudice to renewal. If plaintiff does renew its motion to compel, the renewed motion should identify the discovery response which plaintiff believes are inadequate, and should explain why the responses are inadequate.

SO ORDERED