Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-403
06-28-2012
ANTHONY C. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court in this action advancing various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a motion to compel filed by the pro se Plaintiff, claiming that Defendants failed to respond to his First Request for Production of Documents. (Docket # 36.)
Plaintiff's motion, however, is misplaced, as the record reflects that Defendants did indeed respond to his discovery request, producing some documents and raising some objections. (Docket # 30, 31); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) (explaining that a response to a document request includes producing the responsive documents or an objection to the request, including the reasons). Nor does Plaintiff identify with any particularity a specific response that is purportedly inadequate such that the Court could discern whether an order to supplement the response is necessary. See, e.g., Morris v. Ley, No. 05 C-0458, 2006 WL 2585029, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 7, 2006) (denying pro se plaintiff's motion to compel because it was "nearly impossible to ascertain which documents the plaintiff seeks to have produced").
Consequently, Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket # 36) is DENIED without prejudice, subject to renewal once he compares his discovery requests to the responsive documents and objections produced by Defendants.
SO ORDERED.
______________
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge