Opinion
CIVIL 1:20-cv-00189-MR
09-29-2022
IAIAN EVANS MCCLELLAN, Plaintiff, v. TODD SCHETTER, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. [Doc. 75].
Plaintiff Iaian Evans McClellan (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit on July 10, 2020. [Doc. 1]. The current dispositive motions deadline is October 6, 2022. [Doc. 74 at 4]. On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses from Defendants, claiming the Defendants withheld certain documents that Plaintiff knows exist. [Doc. 73]. Plaintiff, however, failed to include copies of the subject discovery requests and Defendants' responses thereto with his motion to compel. The Court admonished Plaintiff that it could not assess and address Plaintiff's motion without these materials. [Doc. 74 at 3]. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion without prejudice “to his properly presenting it within 14 days of [the Court's] Order.” [Id.]. The Court sua sponte extended the dispositive motions deadline to allow resolution of this discovery matter. [Id.].
Plaintiff's timely renewed motion to compel is now before the Court. [Doc. 75]. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Schetter's response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents No. 6 is “not a truthful response because No ‘disciplinary infraction' and No ‘Use of Force statement' has been produced when [Plaintiff] know[s] for a fact that both exist.” [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff also states that he “just would like all ‘use of force statements,' ‘Disciplinary Infractions' and ‘medical records' produced that this incident caused to be documented.” [Id.]. Plaintiff, however, again fails to include copies of the subject discovery requests and responses despite the Court's admonition that it could not assess and address Plaintiff's motion without these materials. [See Doc. 74 at 3]. Plaintiff states only, “I'm a prisoner, I have no copy machine to mail every document I reference or I won't have a copy myself.....” [Doc. 75 at 2]. Plaintiff does not request to be excused from the requirement or even provide the Court with a recitation of the subject requests or Defendants' full responses to the disputed requests. As previously stated, the Court cannot assess and address Plaintiff's motion without this information. The Court, therefore, will deny Plaintiff's motion to compel.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. 75[ is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.