The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
On February 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a pleading titled "Opposition Response and Objection to Defendants' Interrogatories." The court construes this pleading as a motion to compel.
On March 9, 2009, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. Defendants object that plaintiff's motion does not include a copy of the original at-issue interrogatories or defendants' responses. Defendants also contend that plaintiff does not describe why defendants' responses to these interrogatories are inadequate.
On March 18, 2009, plaintiff filed a request to correct his February 24, 2009, pleading because it contains a mistake.
Defendants' objections to plaintiff's motion to compel have merit. Because plaintiff failed to provide a copy of the at-issue interrogatories or defendants' responses, the court cannot evaluate whether there is any merit to plaintiff's motion. In addition, the court could not evaluate defendants' responses even if they were provided because plaintiff failed to discuss why the responses were inadequate.
Because plaintiff's motion is not well supported, it is denied. Rather than allowing plaintiff to correct his February 24, 2009, pleading, the court will deny the motion to compel without prejudice so that plaintiff may re-file his motion once he has addressed the matters discussed above.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's February 24, 2009, opposition to defendants' answers to interrogatories, construed as a motion to compel, is denied without prejudice;
2. Plaintiff's March 18, 2009, motion to correct the February 24, 2009, pleading is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...