IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 12, 2006
MICHAEL PETERSON, PLAINTIFF,
OFFICER REINHARDT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to compel the defendants to fully and honestly comply with his discovery requests. (Doc. 47). It is not entirely clear which specific discovery requests/responses plaintiff takes issue with. Plaintiff has not included copies of the discovery requests and responses, as required by Local Rule 26.1(b)(3). Plaintiff attaches letters to defense counsel that specify a few factual corrections relative to dates and times, and request that the defendants come to their senses and allow him to be free again. Plaintiff also attaches a letter indicating dissatisfaction with the defendants responses to certain requests for production and interrogatories. Defendants have not responded to the subject motion. It is therefore impossible for the Court to analyze the adequacy of the defendants' discovery responses and the propriety of plaintiff's motion to compel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 47) is DENIED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.