Queen v. U S A

District Court, W.D. Louisiana

Queen v. U S A

Trial Court Opinion

b UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

NICHOLAS QUEEN, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:19-CV-01576 Plaintiff

VERSUS JUDGE DRELL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES Defendants

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Queen filed a complaint filed pursuant to ,

403 U.S. 388

(1971) (“ , and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. '' 2671-2680. ECF No. 9. The only remaining Defendant is the United States of America. In July 2020, Queen filed a “Motion for Compel From Defendant the Following Discovery, Interrogatives, and Omissions.” ECF No. 24. Queen “requests that the Defendant provide” a list of documents and records. Queen also states that, because Defendant has not made an appearance (at least 49 days since service), the Court should grant his Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF No. 24-2 at 3. Queen’s Motion to Compel is premature because it was filed before the Government made an appearance. Moreover, it does not appear that Queen ever requested the documents directly from the Government. Queen’s Motion is deficient because he failed to include a certification that he has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the Government in an effort to obtain the requested documents without Court action, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Accordingly, Queen’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 24) is DENIED as premature and deficient. SIGNED on Friday, February 5, 2021. fF ry “ Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown