United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
Johnston United States Magistrate Judge.
pending is Mr. Winne's Objection which has been construed
as a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50); and
Defendants' Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of
Time (Doc. 57.) The motion for reconsideration will be
denied. The motion to compel and motion for extension will be
Motion for Reconsideration
Winne has filed a document entitled, “Plaintiff Objects
to Judges' Order (Doc. 48).” The Court has
construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration. Local
Rule 7.3 provides as follows:
(b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration must be limited to seven
pages and must specifically meet at least one of the
following two criteria:
(1) (A) the facts or applicable law are materially different
from the facts or applicable law that the parties presented
to the court before entry of the order for which
reconsideration is sought, and
(B) despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party
applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
before entry of the order; or
(2) new material facts emerged or a change of law occurred
after entry of the order.
(c) Prohibition Against Repetition of Argument. No motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any
oral or written argument made by the applying party before
entry of the order. Violation of this restriction subjects
the offending party to appropriate sanctions.
Court denied Mr. Winne's motion for leave to file
accumulated documents from prison staff because the documents
were already in the record. Mr. Winne objects to this Order
by explaining why the documents were relevant to his
arguments. He then asks that the documents be allowed to be
part of the record. Again, the documents attached to Mr.
Winne's motion to file are already part of the record.
There is no need to refile these documents. The Court
considered these documents in its first analysis of
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and it will
consider them in its final analysis of Defendants'
motion. The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
. Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time to File
November 10, 2016, Defendants served Plaintiff with Special
Discovery Requests pursuant to the Court's October 12,
2016 Order. (Doc. 57-1.) On December 15, 2016, Mr. Winne
signed his responses to Defendants' discovery. (Doc.
57-2.) Defendants contend these responses were deficient in
that Mr. Winne replies to most requests by referring
Defendants to discovery.
Court agrees that Mr. Winne's responses are deficient and
almost meaningless. The Court will require Mr. Winne to file
supplemental responses to Defendants' discovery requests.
Should he fail to comply, the Court will recommend the
dismissal of this action.
making these responses, Mr. Winne is reminded of the
following Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. First, Local Rule 26.3(a)(1) requires that
“Answers and objections to interrogatories pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and responses and objections to requests for
admissions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36 must identify and
quote each interrogatory or request for admission in full
immediately preceding the statement of any answer or
objection.” Mr. Winne's discovery responses fail to
comply with this rule. The Court will have the Clerk of Court
provide Mr. Winne with another copy of Defendants'