Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68 RegisterActionDate "2018-06-28" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 6/28/2018. Plaintiff is detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center and alleges five Defendants used excessive force against him. See March 23, 2017 Case Management Order; November 29, 2017 Case Management Order. Defendants have now filed a response to Plaintiffs motion asking the Court to hold them in civil contempt for failing to provide the initial discovery previously ordered by the Court. 43 . Defendants note the Court set a May 28, 2018 deadline for initial discovery. See April 26, 2018 Scheduling Order. Defendants knew they were not able to meet the deadline and they have provided a copy of a letter sent to Plaintiff requesting an additional 30 days and noting they would be filing a motion for a protective order concerning Plaintiffs medical records. Instead, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Civil Contempt on June 13, 2018. Defendants also note they did not tell Plaintiff any relevant video has been recorded over. Instead, Defendants say they recently obtained the video, but due to the volume of the video clip, they have not had sufficient time to review the footage to determine if there is any recording relevant to Plaintiffs excessive force claim. Therefore, the Defendants ask the Court to deny Plaintiffs motion to compel, enter a HIPAA protective order, and allow 30 additional days to provide relevant discovery. Plaintiffs Motion for Civil Contempt is denied. 43 . There is no evidence before the Court confirming Plaintiff received Defendants letter. However, Plaintiff is admonished if he does provide intentionally misleading or untruthful information to the Court in the future, he may face sanctions including fines, or ultimately, the dismissal of his lawsuit. In addition, Defendants should file any future requests to extend discovery deadlines as motions with the Court. Defendants motion for a HIPAA order is denied as the Court has previously entered a protective order similar to the order proposed by Defendants. 13 . However, Defendants motion for an additional 30 days to provide initial discovery including an opportunity for Plaintiff to review any relevant video recording is granted.(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 06/28/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de18 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de68 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de65 @default.