IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 17, 2006
WILLIAM CANNON, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT HUGHES, DEREK CLELAND, JAMES BEST, PAUL BAUGH, RONALD WILLIAMS, PAUL HENDERSON, PERRY SEVERS, AND BRYCE HILL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Give Additional Consideration to Plaintiff's Request for Default Judgment. (Doc. 192). Defendants filed a response. (Doc. 194). Plaintiff filed a reply, which he titled "Objection to Defendants' Response." (Doc. 197).
The Court denied plaintiff's previous motion for default judgment for the reasons set forth in Doc. 188. In a nutshell, defendants neglected to file a timely answer after the Seventh Circuit remanded Count 13 only for further proceedings. Upon receipt of plaintiff's default motions, defendants promptly filed a motion for leave to file an answer, which was granted. See, Docs. 179 and 180. They filed their answer on the same day that leave was granted. See, Doc. 181.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to enter default because he is dissatisfied with defendants discovery responses and initial disclosures. In effect, plaintiff is asking that default be entered as a discovery sanction. However, the motion does not include a certificate of attempt to resolve as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2), and must be denied for that reason.
The Court notes plaintiff's complaint that certain of defendants' pleadings were not signed. Doc. 192, ¶16. In the electronic filing system, the "signature" is the typewritten name of the attorney who filed the pleading. Defendants' pleadings were properly signed.
Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion to Give Additional Consideration to Plaintiff's Request for Default Judgment (Doc. 192) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.