IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
October 16, 2007
PABLO ESTRADA, PLAINTIFF,
WILLIAM HAMBY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion for Failure to Make Disclosures," which the Court construes as a motion to compel the defendants to respond to plaintiff's requests for production. (Doc. 68). Plaintiff has not submitted his requests for production, as required by Local Rule 26.1(b)(3). Therefore, it is virtually impossible for the Court to properly assess the merits of plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff does submit a copy of a letter from defense counsel indicating that many of the requested documents are not in his clients' possession; some documents were forwarded to plaintiff.
Based on the limited information before the Court, it appears that the defendants have complied with plaintiff's requests for production. Defendants are under no obligation to produce documents that are not in their custody or control. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Plaintiff must keep in mind that the defendants are sued in their individual capacities and, although the defendants are employees of the entities that may have many of the requested documents, the defendants themselves do not have custody or control over those documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the subject motion (Doc. 68) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.