Opinion
C21-5536 MJP
03-31-2023
CARLOS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. LORI LAWSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS MOOT
Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Letters with Counsel (Dkt. No. 91) and Motion to Compel Former Counsel of Record (Dkt. No. 109). Having reviewed the Motion, Defendants' Response (Dkt. No. 100), the response of Plaintiff's former counsel (Dkt. No. 116), and the Reply (Dkt. No. 114), the Court DENIES the Motions as MOOT.
Through his two Motions, Plaintiff seeks to obtain his former counsel's work product and hard copy records related to this case. Former counsel has responded to the Motions and notified the Court that all such files have been sent to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 116 at 1-2.) As such, the Court DENIES the Motions as MOOT.
But as former counsel notes, there is no clear evidence as to whether Plaintiff has been provided copies of or access to the files by Monroe Correction Complex (MCC). Defendants must promptly ensure that Plaintiff has access to these files. Within 3 days of entry of this Order, Defendants must confirm with the Court that Plaintiff has access to these materials at MCC and describe the nature of his access.
The Court notes that Defendants have refused to allow Plaintiff to obtain copies of certain video evidence that Plaintiff's former counsel possessed. (See Dkt. No. 116 at 2; Dkt. No. 1161.) Defendants have moved for a protective order to bar Plaintiff from accessing this evidence. (Dkt. No. 127.) The Court will resolve that motion by separate order.
Lastly, the Court does not read either Motion as seeking materials from Defendants. As such, the Court rejects and finds unhelpful the arguments set forth in Defendants' response brief. (Dkt. No. 100).
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel.