LANIER v. HENDERSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

No. 1:15-cv-262-FDW.

RICARDO EDWIN LANIER, Plaintiff, v. HENDERSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Jail Officials on duty day of incident, etal., Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division.

Editors Note
Cause: Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ricardo Edwin Lanier, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Linda Corn, Defendant, represented by Sean F. Perrin , Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice.

Brian Helton, Defendant, represented by Sean F. Perrin , Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice.

FNU Mcdonald, Defendant, represented by Katherine R. Hilkey-Boyatt , Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog, LLP & Sean F. Perrin , Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice.

Jim Player, Defendant, represented by Sean F. Perrin , Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice.

Christy Adams, Defendant, represented by Sean F. Perrin , Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice.


ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 66).

Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Edwin Lanier, a North Carolina state inmate currently incarcerated at Caswell Correctional Institution, filed this action on November 25, 2015, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2016, this Court found that the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint survived initial review. (Doc. No. 16). On January 11, 2017, the Court entered a scheduling order, setting the deadline for discovery as May 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 62). Plaintiff filed the motion to compel on February 16, 2017, stating that he has submitted various interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Defendants, but some of the responses he has received are inadequate.

The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion to compel, as Defendants have shown in their response to the motion to compel that, before filing the motion to compel, Plaintiff did not confer or attempt to confer in good faith with Defendants in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute before filing the motion to compel. Plaintiff, therefore, did not comply with either this Court's Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan or with the Court's Local Rule 7.1(B) before filing the pending motion to compel. Defendants have further shown that they have adequately responded to the discovery requests at issue or that they properly objected to various discovery requests because the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc. No. 66), is DENIED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases