IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 6, 2006
DARRYL K. TOLIVER, PLAINTIFF,
FAISA AHMED, PAM GRUBMAN, AND GARY GERST, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud United States Magistrate Judge
PROUD, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 29). Defendant Grubman, the only defendant who has been served, has filed a response. (Doc. 34).
Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production in October, 2005. Apparently, defendant objected to a number of the discovery requests. Plaintiff has not attached copies of the requests and objections, or set forth verbatim recitations of same, as required by SDIL-LR 26.1(b)(3). Plaintiff describes categories of documents which he requested, and he states that defendant objected that "personal records of officers or other prisoners are not relevant to this action, that the discovery sought is irrelevant, burdensome, or privileged having no merit." See, Doc. 30, p.4. There is no information about the interrogatories or objections thereto.
It is evident that plaintiff's document requests are overbroad and seek documents that are irrelevant, and, in some instances, privileged. For example, plaintiff seeks production of the following:
"All documents that contain, mention, construe, or refer to policies of medical staff supervision of inmates at Menard." "All documents of discipline on medical staff at Menard CC from June 21, 2002, until present date."
"All documents relating to inmates deaths at Menard CC from June 21, 2002, until present date."
See, Doc. 30, p.3.
None of plaintiff's document requests are proper. If plaintiff desires to try again, he should confine his requests to relevant documents, that is, to documents which pertain to the facts of his case, and avoid documents which relate to other inmates.
Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 29) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.