Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heleva v. Kunkle

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 26, 2006

DANIEL A. HELEVA, PLAINTIFF
v.
SANDRA KUNKLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge

(Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 88) for defendants' failure to produce requested documents, see FED. R. CIV. P. 37, and it appearing that defendants responded to plaintiff's request for the production of documents with objections (see Doc. 91, Ex. A), and that plaintiff has not filed a motion to compel before seeking sanctions, see id. 37(a)(2)(B) (providing that if a party fails to produce the requested documents, "the discovering party may move for an order compelling" the production of the documents); see also McMullen v. Bay Ship Mgmt., 335 F.3d 215, 217 (3d Cir. 2003) ("Generally, [Rule 37] requires the issuance of an order to compel and only after failure to comply with that order should a penalty be imposed."), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for sanctions (Doc. 88) is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file a motion to compel, specifically addressing defendants' objections to the discovery requests and the relevance of the requested documents to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.*fn1


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.