Opinion
20-cv-01324-PJH
08-11-2021
HERMAN TAMRAT, Plaintiff, v. SEAN REID, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
RE: DKT. NOS. 42, 45
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Reid filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff filed an opposition. However, plaintiff has also filed a motion to compel in order to obtain more documents to file an additional opposition.
The court previously informed plaintiff that if he filed a motion to compel he must describe which specific discovery requests he seeks to compel, why defendant's responses are insufficient and why he is entitled to the discovery. Docket No. 39 at 2. He was also informed that he must meet and confer with defendant. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel but failed to meet and confer with defendant. In addition, plaintiff only states that defendant failed to produce several documents. He fails to present any arguments why defendant's responses were insufficient and why he is entitled to this discovery.
Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff must first meet and confer with defendant regarding the discovery requests. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended motion to compel, he must describe which specific discovery requests he seeks to compel, why defendant's responses are insufficient and why he is entitled to the discovery.
For the foregoing reasons:
1. The motion to compel (Docket No. 42) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff must meet confer with defendant and any amended motion to compel must be filed by September 21, 2021.
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension (Docket No. 45) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.