The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ADDRESSING STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY NEEDED (ECF Nos. 184, 187) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO RESPONSE TO ORDER (ECF No. 189)
Plaintiff Daniel Manriquez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 13, 2012, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth motions to compel and ordered the parties to file a statement of discovery needed. (ECF No. 181.) On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a statement of discovery needed. (ECF No. 184.) At the order of the Court, Defendants filed a response to the statement of discovery needed on April 2, 2012. (ECF No. 187.) Plaintiff filed a reply on April 16, 2012. (ECF No. 189.)
Initially, the Court did not request a reply from Plaintiff and his response shall be stricken from the record. Plaintiff is reminded that he has previously been admonished that the Court will not tolerate his unsupported claims of misconduct by defense counsel. (Order 6:9-15, ECF No. 131.) Plaintiff's disagreement with defendants' position does not state misconduct on the part of Defendants. The Court is well aware of the history of the discovery disputes and orders issued in this action.
The discovery that is requested in Plaintiff's statement of discovery needed has not previously been addressed by the Court. In their reply, Defendants state that they will serve responsive documents on Plaintiff within thirty days. Since thirty days has passed, Defendants should have served their responses on Plaintiff. The Court has previously been provided with the substantial amount of discovery which Defendants have provided in response to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's are not to be filed with the Court.
Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to file a single motion to compel to address any dispute regarding Defendants' responses to the statement of discovery. Plaintiff is cautioned that he should narrow the focus of his motion to discovery specifically needed and eliminate any duplication and redundancy in his motion or in the discovery. The Court will not wade through volumes of incoherent and unfocused papers to search for incomplete discovery, and if the motion is not focused, the Court will deny the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's reply, filed April 16, 2012, is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD; and
2. Plaintiff is granted the opportunity to file one motion to compel regarding the requests in the statement of discovery needed within sixty days from the date of service of this order.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...