IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 10, 2008
GLENN SMITH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
TOM MAUE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to compel defendants Maue, Spiller, McAdory, Walls and Gales to respond to plaintiff's first request for production of documents and first set of interrogatories. (Doc. 125). Plaintiff takes issue with: (1) the defendants' objection that the relevant time period is limited to when plaintiff Muhammad was housed in C-wing, meaning after December 30, 2002; and (2) the defendants' refusal to answer interrogatories directed at E. Cowan, Gary Hutchinson and L. Owens, who are not defendants in this action. Plaintiff further prays for $39.00 in costs and expenses related to the filing of the subject motion. The defendants' response generally reflects the aforementioned objections. (Doc. 126).
The defendants correctly limit their responses to the time period plaintiff was housed in C-wing. At this juncture Shabazz Muhammad is the only plaintiff. Therefore, the relevant time period is limited to the period he was housed in C-wing, not when former plaintiffs Glenn Smith and/or Herman Rich were housed in C-wing. Accordingly, the defendants need only produce documents and answer interrogatories with respect to the time period between December 30, 2002, and March 6, 2003, when plaintiff Muhammad was housed in C-wing. Similarly, only information about the defendants and their respective job descriptions, duties and activity for that time period are relevant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) dictates that interrogatories may only be propounded upon parties to an action. Therefore, "Plaintiff's Interrogatories for Defendants['] Agents," seeking responses from E. Cowan, Gary Hutchinson and L. Ownes, are improper and need not be answered by the defendants.
Insofar as plaintiff's motion has failed in all respects, his request for costs and expenses is moot. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. 125) is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.