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.

George L. Barnes v. Michael Peebles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 26, 2011

GEORGE L. BARNES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL PEEBLES, CENTRALIA POLICE OFFICER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Robert Demitra's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 74) and Defendants Sergeant James and Michael Peebles' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 75), which the Court previously construed as objections to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud's Order (Doc. 73) of August 18, 2010. Doc. 78. Specifically, Defendants argue that Magistrate Judge Proud should have granted their Motions for Sanctions (Docs. 69, 70) because Plaintiff George Barnes did not tender responses to interrogatories as previously ordered. Assuming sanctions are appropriate, Defendants ask that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on dispositive issues must review de novo the portions of the decision to which objections are made. S.D. Ill. L. R. 73.1(b). Here, it can hardly be said that the order of Magistrate Judge Proud was wrong on its face. In responding to Defendants' requests for sanctions, Barnes stated that he had "complyed [sic] with ALL [discovery] request [sic] by Defendants" and that he had "fully answered ALL Defendants [sic] request's [sic] . . . ." Doc. 71, p. 1, 2 (emphases in original). When Defendants did not reply to these quite-clear assertions, Magistrate Judge Proud justifiably assumed that Defendants were satisfied with their veracity. Nevertheless, the fact that Defendants have since alleged these assertions to be untrue certainly warrants an explanation from Barnes.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS Barnes to SHOW CAUSE why he has not tendered the requested interrogatory responses by February 11, 2011, and to mail said responses to defense counsel by that date. If Barnes does not provide good cause for his failure to produce the interrogatory responses or if he does not sufficiently explain why his response to the sanctions motions was somewhat untrue, the Court can and will entertain motions for serious sanctions. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motions for Reconsideration (Docs. 74, 75).

IT IS SO ORDERED

J. Phil Gilbert

20110126

© 1992-2011 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.