Rodgers v. Edwards ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GARY DANIEL RODGERS, JR. (#700016) CIVIL ACTION NO. VERSUS 21-233-JWD-SDJ JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (R. Doc. 55) filed by pro se Plaintiff Gary Daniel Rodgers, Jr. (#700016), on April 12, 2023. In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (1) to have Defendant “answer fully interrogatories Number 14, copies of which are attached hereto”;1 (2) for Defendant “to produce for inspection and copying” certain documents for which Plaintiff “submitted a written request … on 3-16-23, 3-26-23, and 3-30-23”;2 and (3) for Defendant “to pay Plaintiff’s the sum of the states reasonable estimate budget expenses grants in obtaining this order.”3 Defendant opposes this Motion, filing his Memorandum in Opposition on May 3, 2023 (R. Doc. 67). Plaintiff’s first request is for responses to “interrogatories Number 14,” which, despite Plaintiff’s assertions, are not attached to his Motion. As correctly noted by Defendant in his Opposition, Plaintiff’s first set of Interrogatories was propounded on August 25, 2022, prior to Defendant making an appearance in this case.4 As such, these discovery requests were premature, and Defendant has no obligation to respond to them. See Estelle v. FMC Techs., No. 07-1559, 2007 WL 3231542, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 29, 2007) (“Under Rule 26(d), a party may not seek 1 R. Doc. 55 at 1. 2 Id. at 2. 3 Id. 4 R. Doc. 67 at 3. Plaintiff’s first set of Interrogatories are Record Document 24. Defendant first made an appearance in this case on February 17, 2023, when he filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. R. Doc. 37. discovery from any source before the parties have conferred and submitted a discovery plan as required by Rule 26(f), unless the parties agree or the Court orders otherwise…. In the absence of a Rule 26(f) conference, the Defendants are under no obligation to respond to the Plaintiff’s premature discovery requests…”). This request by Plaintiff is denied. Plaintiff next requests production of documents originally requested on three dates in March 2023. As asserted in Defendants’ Opposition, “Defendant has responded to the three mentioned requests for production as of the date of the filing of this [Opposition],” providing the dates on which they were filed and the Record Document numbers for each of Defendant’s responses.5 Plaintiff has not since filed a motion indicating that said responses were inadequate or incomplete. Given that the relief being requested by Plaintiff has already been provided by Defendant, the Court finds this request by Plaintiff moot. Plaintiff’s final request is for expenses he incurred “in obtaining this order.” As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel, the Court is unaware of any expenses actually incurred by Plaintiff relating to the filing of the instant Motion. Moreover, the Court is not granting Plaintiff any of the relief requested in his Motion. As such, Plaintiff is not entitled to any expenses, should any have been incurred, and this request by Plaintiff is denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (R. Doc. 55) is DENIED. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 27, 2023. S SCOTT D. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 R. Doc. 67 at 3-4. Defendant’s responses are located at Record Documents 59, 61, and 63.