Price v. Leflore County Det. Ctr. Pub. Trust

No. 13-CV-402-JHP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100125 (E.D. Okla. July 23, 2014)



Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3), "[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection" if, inter alia, "a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33" or "fails to respond that inspection [of requested documents] will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34."


Plaintiff, Loretta Price, individually and as Special Administrator in the matter of the Estate of Duane E. Sweeten, commenced this action on February 19, 2013 in the District Court for Leflore County, Oklahoma. [Doc. No. 3, Ex. 2]. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Petition [Doc. No. 3, Exhibit 3] and a Second Amended Petition [Doc. No. 3, Ex. 4]. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on September 5, 2013. [Doc. No. 3]. Plaintiff asserts claims under title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code Article 2, sections 7 and 30 of the Oklahoma Constitution; and title 19, section 746 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Plaintiff's claims stem from the death of her son, Duane E. Sweeten ("Sweeten"), on August 15, 2011 while Sweeten was incarcerated in Leflore County Jail.


Should the defendant Trust's motion for leave to file a supplemental response to the plaintiff's Motion to Compel be denied?




Defendant Trust requests leave of the Court to file a supplemental response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. At this late date such a supplemental response, together with time for the Defendant to reply to the supplemental response, would only delay the schedule agreed to by the parties and set in the Scheduling Order. [Doc. No. 31]. This delay is unnecessary given that Defendant Trust had sufficient opportunity to raise any arguments in its Response and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel on April 28, 2014. The time for Defendant Trust to respond has passed. The Defendant Trust's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Response to the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is therefore denied.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.