Darryl Bradshaw v. James Caldwell, et al.

Summary

The court grants defendants’ motions to compel discovery responses and extend the discovery-related deadlines in Darryl Bradshaw’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action. The court orders plaintiff to respond within 30 days to defendants’ interrogatories and document demands, but declines to rule prematurely on whether plaintiff has waived future objections. An amended scheduling order is to follow.

Holdings

1. Defendants satisfied Rule 37(a)(1)'s meet-and-confer requirement, and Plaintiff's failure to timely answer the interrogatories without adequate justification warranted an order compelling responses.
2. Plaintiff was required to respond in writing to each document demand and either produce responsive documents within his possession, custody, or control or state specific grounds for objection; his asserted inability to access some documents did not excuse the obligation to respond.
3. The court declined to rule prospectively that Plaintiff had waived all future objections because Plaintiff had asserted no objections and expressed no intent to assert them; such a ruling would be premature.
4. Defendants were entitled to an extension of the deadline to complete discovery and corresponding related deadlines because Plaintiff's overdue discovery responses were needed before the deposition and further motion practice was likely.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants satisfied the meet-and-confer requirement and were entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to answer their interrogatories.
2. Whether Plaintiff was required to provide written responses to Defendants' document demands despite claiming that he lacked possession of some responsive documents because of prison sanctions.
3. Whether the court should prospectively preclude Plaintiff from asserting objections to Defendants' discovery demands as untimely.
4. Whether Defendants were entitled to an extension of the discovery deadline and related scheduling deadlines.

Disposition

other