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.

Toliver v. Ahmed

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 22, 2007

DARRYL K. TOLIVER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FAISA AHMED, PAM GRUBMAN, AND GARY GERST, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Requests. (Doc. 76).

Plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its order denying his motion to compel, Doc. 75. The court denied his motion to compel because the motion to compel did not include "copies of his requests or of defendant's responses, so it is impossible for the court to evaluate the sufficiency of defendant's responses. See, SDIL-LR 26.1(b)(3)."

Plaintiff does not present any grounds for reconsideration of the previous order.

In the present motion, plaintiff describes some categories of information he seeks and documents which he would like Grubman to produce. The court is unable to tell whether Plaintiff has actually requested directed these specific requests to defendant. He does not state what response, if any, defendant made to his requests.

If the requests have already been served, and defendant has either failed to respond, or has objected, then Plaintiff should file a motion to compel which sets forth the language of (1) the request for documents which was served on defendant, and (2) defendant's responses to the requests, if any.

If these specific requests have not yet been served on defendant, Plaintiff should do so. Discovery requests should be served on the opposing party first, without filing the requests with the court. The opposing party then has 30 days in which to respond. If the opposing party files an objection, or if plaintiff is dissatisfied with the response, he may then file a motion to compel, following the procedures described in the paragraph above.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Request (Doc. 76) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20070322

© 1992-2007 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.