Opinion
1:19-cv-1091
03-08-2022
TIRONNE SIMPKINS, Plaintiff, v. NURSE PRACTITIONER ROBERTSON, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Tironne Simpkins' Motion to Grant Interrogatories (the “Motion.”) (ECF No. 21.) Defendant Tasma Robertson opposes the Motion. (ECF No. 22.) Simpkins asks the Court to allow interrogatories so that he can respond properly to Robertson's Motion for Summary Judgment. Simpkins also asks the Court to stay its decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment until the completion of interrogatories.
Simpkins does not need the Court's leave to serve interrogatories. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1). He has not provided a certificate affirming that he consulted with Robertson about his Motion. Local Rule 7.2 provides:
All motions, including discovery motions but not including motions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, 56, 59 and 60 shall be accompanied by a certificate of
counsel or the parties proceeding pro se affirming that, after consultation between the parties to the controversy, they are unable to reach an accord as to all issues or that all other parties are in agreement with the action requested by the motion. Failure to attach an accompanying certificate of consultation may be deemed good grounds for denying the motion.
LR 7.2(a)(1)(B).
Simpkins' Motion is DENIED. Insofar as the Motion can be construed as a motion to stay the Court's decision on Robertson's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Motion is DENIED as moot. Simpkins has until March 22, 2022, to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
SO ORDERED.