IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION
November 28, 2007
JAMES OWENS, INMATE #K83253, PLAINTIFF,
ROD BLAGOJEVICH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff Owens' motion to compel the defendants to comply with his request for production of documents initially propounded on or about January 17, 2007. (Doc. 72). According to plaintiff, defense counsel previously indicated the discovery request had never been received, so plaintiff forwarded the request again on or about June 12, 2007.
Plaintiff asserts that the Court's June 18, 2007, denial of a similar motion to compel was in error. That denial was based on multiple procedural errors, including plaintiff's failure to specify when the discovery request had been propounded, which made it impossible to calculate whether the defendants were tardy in responding. Plaintiff fails to appreciate that if defense counsel did not receive the discovery request until some time around June 12, 2007, their responses would not even be due until after June 18, 2007, when the Court denied the first motion to compel. In any event, plaintiff has failed to show cause for revisiting that first motion to compel. The Court will construe the subject motion as a renewed motion to compel.
According to the defendants, they responded to plaintiff's discovery requests on July 13, 2007-- within 30 days of receipt of the requests. (Doc. 76). In reply, plaintiff offers what appear to be arguments tailored to whatever objections defendants may have lodged. (Doc. 80). Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a copy of the defendants' responses to the discovery requests, so the Court cannot analyze plaintiff's counter-arguments. See Local Rule 26.1(b)(3).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 72) is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.