IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 28, 2006
KENDRICK HARRIS, PLAINTIFF,
GIAVANNIE MORRIS, AND CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, ILLINOIS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Judgment in Plaintiff's Favor/Motion for Costs and or Sanctions. (Doc. 20).
Plaintiff states that he hand-delivered requests for production of documents to defendant's attorney on January 12, 2006, but has not received a response. He firsts asks that judgment be entered in his favor pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. However, because he has not shown that he is entitled to summary judgment, that request must be denied. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, which is inapplicable to this situation by its terms. See, Rule 11(d).
Despite the title, this is really a motion to compel a response to discovery requests. Defendants have not responded to the motion.
Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion for Judgment in Plaintiff's Favor/Motion for Costs and or Sanctions (Doc. 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
The requests for judgment, sanctions, and costs are denied.
Defendants are ordered to produce the documents requested by plaintiff on or before May 12, 2006.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.