Opinion
Cause No. 1:06CV56.
August 21, 2006
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Continuation (DE # 54) filed August 18, 2006. Reading the motion liberally, it would appear that the Plaintiff is actually asking to supplement his responses to CSX's first set of interrogatories and first request for production of documents.
In that regard, the Plaintiff correctly notes that he has a duty to supplement a discovery response if he learns it was materially incorrect or incomplete when made, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(2), but he does not need to file a motion in order to do so. Accordingly, the Court deems the filing to be a supplementation to earlier discovery responses and since a motion is not required, the Plaintiff's "motion" is deemed MOOT.