Opinion
3:24-cv-9-DPM-ERE
08-21-2024
BRAD PAUL SMITH ADC #660448 PLAINTIFF v. THOMAS HURST, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Brad Paul Smith has moved for a Court order compelling Defendants to allow to him to view certain video footage regarding the events giving rise to this lawsuit. Doc. 40. Mr. Smith explains that: (1) he made this request on July 9, 2024; (2) Defendants had three days to respond; and (3) they failed to do so.
This is legally incorrect. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (b)(2)(A) gives a responding party 30 days, not 3, to answer properly served discovery requests.
On April 24, 2024, I stayed merits discovery in this matter until any summary judgment motions raising the issue of exhaustion have been resolved. Doc. 27. On May 15, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment raising the issue of exhaustion. Doc. 29. On July 10, 2024, I recommended that Defendants' motion be granted in part, and denied in part. Doc. 38. That Recommendation remains pending. Doc. 38. As a result, merits discovery remains stayed.
After the discovery stay is lifted, Mr. Smith can send his formal discovery requests to counsel for Defendants, who will have thirty days to respond. Mr. Smith should also be aware that he should try to resolve any arguments related to his discovery requests with defense counsel directly before involving the Court. See Local Rule 7.2(g) (“All motions to compel discovery and all other discoveryenforcement motions . . . shall contain a statement by the moving party that the parties have conferred in good faith on the specific issue or issues in dispute and that they are not able to resolve their disagreements without the intervention of the Court.”).
Even though formal discovery is premature at this time, Defendants already are on notice that they must take all appropriate steps to locate and preserve any video or other evidence that may be relevant to Mr. Smith's pending claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Mr. Smith's motion to compel (Doc. 40) is DENIED.