From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Eskestrand

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 11, 2009
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02041-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 11, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-02041-CMA-BNB.

June 11, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before me on a filing by the plaintiff entitled Failure to Make Disclosure or Cooperate in Discovery Rule 37(a)(2) [Doc. #99, filed 4/23/09]. I construe the filing as a motion to compel (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED.

The plaintiff states that on February 25 and 26, 2009, he served six Requests for Production of Documents on the defendants. He further states that as of April 13, 2009, the requests had not been answered and he has not received any initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P.

An action brought by a pro se inmate is exempt from the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv). The plaintiff is an inmate proceeding pro se. Therefore, the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26 do not apply to this action.

The plaintiff has failed to include a description of the six Requests for Production of Documents he served on the defendants, nor does he specify which defendants were served. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 37.1 (requiring that a motion to compel "set forth verbatim" the request to which it is directed). Nevertheless, all of the defendants assert that they have responded to the plaintiff's requests for documents. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future applications for relief shall be in the form of a motion.


Summaries of

Young v. Eskestrand

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jun 11, 2009
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02041-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 11, 2009)
Case details for

Young v. Eskestrand

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL GENE YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS A. ESKESTRAND, M.D., ORVILLE…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 11, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 07-cv-02041-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Jun. 11, 2009)