IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 10, 2007
CEDRIC WEBB, PLAINTIFF,
EUGENE MCADORY, S. FURLON, LT. KORANDO, AND MAJOR MARTIN, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the court is plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 29). Defendants filed a response at Doc. 30.
Plaintiff served requests for production on defendants. Defendants objected to requests numbers 1 and 2.
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections. He alleges that defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances.
Request number 1 seeks the disciplinary history of Eugene McAdory, including grievances filed against him, lawsuits filed against him, and disciplinary actions taken against him. Defendants object that this request is unduly burdensome and seeks information that is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court agrees.
The scope of discovery is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b); that is, the parties may obtain discovery of non-privileged, relevant information. Relevant information is information that tends to make the existence of a fact more probable or less probable. Fed.R.Evid. 401. The information sought here would not tend to prove or disprove that McAdory retaliated against plaintiff.
The second request asks for the ledger or log of "Orange Crush" equipment for the day in question so that plaintiff can identify defendant John Doe. Defendants object that this information is not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, they object that revealing the list of equipment used by the tactical team to IDOC inmates would pose a security threat.
Defendants' objections are well-taken.
Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc. 29) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.