Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de179> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de179 RegisterActionDate "2017-07-12" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de179 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 7/12/2017. Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled Global Motion to Compel All Discovery. 141 The Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to respond to several previous discovery requests. First, there are no more John Doe Defendants in this case, so any further discovery on this issue is not relevant. See July 10, 2017 Case Management Order. Second, the Defendants have already clearly stated they have no relevant video recordings. The Court cannot order Defendants to produce a video they say does not exist, and Plaintiff has never presented evidence to call this claim into question. This issue will not be addressed further. Third, Plaintiff will not be allowed to "depose all defendants & several witnesses" unless he can pay the costs associated with those depositions, and Defendants are under no obligation to arrange depositions for the Plaintiff. [ 141 , p. 3]. Fourth, Plaintiff's motion to compel clearly includes some requests which are overbroad and not tailored to Plaintiff's claims before the Court. Fifth, the Court has already clearly stated it would "not entertain motions to compel concerning any response to a previous discovery request." See June 19, 2017, p. 1. This includes any discovery request sent to Defendants prior to June 19, 2017. The Court limited motions to compel because Plaintiff failed to follow the Court's specific order that any motions to compel must be filed "with the Court within 14 days of receiving an unsatisfactory response." See January 25, 2017 Scheduling Order, p. 6. Plaintiff's current 56-page motion includes many discovery issues from March of 2017 and before. Sixth, one day before Plaintiff filed his motion, the Court stated it was suspending any additional written discovery and would address discovery issues during an upcoming status conference. See July 10, 2017 Case Management Order. The Court also stated it would attempt to reschedule the status conference to an early date. Plaintiffs motion is therefore denied. 141 Plaintiff MUST abide by the Court's orders. During the upcoming status conference, Plaintiff MUST limit his discovery requests to information relevant to his claims which was NOT the subject of discovery requests prior to June 19, 2017. If Plaintiff continues to file motions in direct opposition to the Courts previous orders, he may face sanctions including financial sanctions or ultimately, the dismissal of his lawsuit. The August 16, 2017 status conference is canceled ant the writ is recalled. The status conference as mentioned in the July 10, 2017 Case Management Order is now scheduled for July 26, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. by telephone conference call. The Clerk is to issue a writ for Plaintiff's participation in the new setting.(JS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/12/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de179 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de179 hasJudgeReference SJ001502 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de179 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01064_de178 @default.