Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Argyropoulos v. City of Alton Police Dep't.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION


September 7, 2006

CHRISTINA A. ARGYROPOULOS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF ALTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff's third motion to compel defendants to respond to an assortment of discovery requests. (Doc. 100). Plaintiff appears to have essentially recycled her second motion to compel (Doc. 69), which was denied based on a procedural flaw-- a failure to certify that efforts to resolve the dispute were made before seeking relief from the Court (Doc. 97). Plaintiff's third motion to compel does contain a certificate indicating that the parties attempted to resolve this discovery dispute, but upon delving further into the motion, other procedural errors prevent the Court from assessing its merits.

Plaintiff moves to compel the defendants (the City of Alton and the individual defendants) to produce an array of files and documents, most of which appear to be of the sort the City, not the individual defendants may possess. Plaintiff does not make clear whether some or all of the documents sought should have been produced pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), or whether specific discovery requests for these documents were propounded upon all or some of the defendants, and whether formal objections were lodged by all or some of the defendants. Plaintiff has not submitted copies or verbatim recitations of the discovery requests and objections at issue, as required by Local Rule 26.1(b)(3); therefore, the Court cannot even attempt to sort this matter out on its own. Also, the Court observes that, despite the Court's previous observation that plaintiff was relying on 15 cases that were not controlling precedents (Doc. 97), plaintiff has not altered her motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's third motion to compel (Doc. 100) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20060907

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.