Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Edwards v. Villmer

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

November 17, 2017

LAWRENCE M EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
TOM VILLMER, et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RONNIE L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on a number of motions pending before the Court. These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition.

         I. Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Order Release of PREA Risk Assessment (ECF No. 82)

         Plaintiff Lawrence Edwards ("Edwards") requests that this Court grant his motion to order the release of PREA Risk Assessment documents. Defendants objected to producing these records because they are closed and confidential under the Missouri Department of Corrections policy Dl-11.2 and are considered internal documents related to institutional security under Mo.

         Rev. Stat. §217.075. (ECF No. 85). In addition, Defendants note that Edwards failed to make a good faith attempt to resolve this discovery dispute before filing this Motion to Compel, as required under E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04. The Court denies the Motion to Order Release of PREA Risk Assessment. The Court holds that these records are closed and confidential. Likewise, the Court denies the Motion because Edwards failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirement prior to filing this motion.

         II. Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86)

         Edwards moved this Court to order Defendants to produce documents in response to his Request for Production of Documents and Edwards' Third Request for Production of Documents. On April 28, 2017, Defendants sent their Response to Edwards' Request for Production of Documents and Response to Edwards' Third Request for Production of Documents and Discovery. (ECF No. 89). Edwards also did not attempt to resolve this dispute prior to filing his Motion to Compel in violation of E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04. The Court denies the Motion to Compel because it appears that Defendants have provided the discovery to Edwards and because Edwards failed to comply with the mandatory meet and confer requirement.

         III. Edwards' Motion for Pretrial Disclosures (ECF No. 114)

         Edwards states that Defendants objected to "monitored phones, " "video footage, " and "crucial documents" as being privileged, closed, and confidential. Edwards claims that he should receive this discovery to "establish the truth of a matter to be determined by the trier of fact." (ECF No. 114 at 1). Edwards also objects to "any excerpts or exhibits used from the June 8, 2017 deposition conducted on him which is substantive evidence that was not subject to discovery ..." [sic] (ECF No. 114 at 1). The Court denies the Motion for Pretrial Disclosures in full. Edwards failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before filing this motion related to the parties' purported discovery disputes. Further, the Court holds that Edwards has not demonstrated that the requested discovery is relevant and proportional to his needs in this case. Additionally, the Court holds that Edwards' request that his deposition not be used against him is either premature or improper. Defendants can use Edwards' deposition for purposes of summary judgment and the Court will make a determination if it can be used at trial at a later date, if necessary.

         IV. Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and Extension of Time (ECF No. 116)

         Edwards asks this Court to compel Defendants to produce their Response to Plaintiffs Fourth Final Request for Production of Documents (ECF No. 116 at 1). Edwards asserts that Defendants' "delay of the 30-day discovery deadline" caused Edwards to need an extension of time to review objections and confer with the Court. (Id.). Edwards claims that he has not received the responsive documents. (Id.). The Court denies Edwards' Motion to Compel because he failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before filing this motion. Edwards mailed the meet and confer letter on the same date that he filed this Motion with the Court. Therefore, the Court holds that Edwards' efforts to meet and confer were not done in good faith, and the Court denies the Motion to Compel on this basis. The Court further holds that Defendants did not unnecessarily delay discovery production in this case because they mailed their Response to Plaintiffs Fourth Final Request for Production of Documents on June 9, 2017, prior to the June 17, 2017 close of discovery. The Court, therefore, denies Edwards' Motion to Compel.

         V. Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 123)

         Edwards moved this Court to order Defendants to produce documents requested in Edwards' Third Request for Production of Documents. Edwards references his Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86), which was previously denied by this Court. The Court again holds that Edwards failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before filing this motion. Edwards mailed the meet and confer letter on the same date that he filed this Motion with the Court. Therefore, the Court holds that Edwards' efforts to meet and confer were not done in good faith. The Court denies the Motion to Compel on this basis and because it previously denied his Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86).

         VI. Edwards' Motion for an Order to Compel ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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