UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
February 2, 2007
JAMEL MONROE, PLAINTIFF,
CRITELLI, CORRECTION OFFICER; JANE DOE, MAIL ROOM CLERK; T. VIRKLER, INMATE GRIEVANCE PROGRAM SUPERVISOR; AND LOCKWOOD, CORRECTION OFFICER, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. Lowe, United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Plaintiff Jamel Monroe has filed a motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P."). Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff seeks to compel a response to Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents served upon the Defendants on July 11, 2006. Id., Aff. at 1. Plaintiff has attached to his motion a copy of a letter sent to the attorney for the Defendants which indicates that he made some good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute prior to filing his motion to compel as is required by Rule 7.1(d) of the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York ("Local Rules").
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion as moot. Defendants indicate that they have now responded to all of Plaintiff's discovery requests. Dkt. No. 25. Although Defendants have failed to provide the Court with copies of their responses, it is telling that Plaintiff has not taken exception to Defendants' assertion that they have responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied as moot. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Poole, No. 95-CV-239H, 1997 WL 626406, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 1997) (denying motion to compel filed by plaintiff where defendants responded to discovery after motion was filed).
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED as moot, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.