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.

Holliday v. Ozburn Hessey Logistics

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


February 27, 2009

DANNY HOLLIDAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
OZBURN HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses. (Doc. 27). The pro se plaintiff has filed a response at Doc. 28.

Defendant is seeking full and complete responses to its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. While plaintiff has made partial responses to some of the discovery requests, his responses are incomplete. In addition, defendant asks that plaintiff be compelled to sign authorizations for the release of his medical and employment records.

In response, plaintiff acknowledges that his responses are incomplete. He points out that he is pro se, and states that he did not realize that he had to "formally object" to the discovery requests. Doc. 28, p. 2. This is not a sufficient reason for failing to respond to the requests. The court notes that defendant' interrogatories directed plaintiff to answer "in the manner set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 33." Doc. 27, Ex. B. Plaintiff could easily ascertain the correct procedures to follow by reading the cited rule. Plaintiff also suggest that the information requested "was confidential and that the defense did not deserve the information." Doc. 28, p. 2. The simple answer to that suggestion is that, by filing the instant lawsuit, plaintiff has opened the door to defendant's questions.

Despite the lack of formal objections, the court has reviewed defendant's discovery requests, and finds that they are proper. They are the type of discovery requests that are routinely propounded in cases such as this.

The court notes plaintiff states that he has executed medical and employment authorizations, after having "slightly changed" the forms. The court assumes that the motion is therefore moot in that regard.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses (Doc. 27) is GRANTED as follows:

1. Plaintiff is ordered to fully and completely answer Interrogatories numbered 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 15-19, and 22-24.

2. Plaintiff is ordered to produce all documents requested in defendant's requests for production numbered 3-6, 8, 10-12, and 18-19.

3. Plaintiff shall serve his responses as ordered herein on or before March 9, 2009.

4. Plaintiff is hereby admonished that failure to obey this court's orders may result in sanctions, and that such sanctions may include monetary penalties and dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20090227

© 1992-2009 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.