Ferguson v. Prince George's County, Maryland et al, No. 8:2014cv03613 - Document 59 (D. Md. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part 58 Supplemental MOTION to Compel, Supplemental MOTION for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 11/22/2016. (c/m 11/23/2016 jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
Ferguson v. Prince George's County, Maryland et al Doc. 59 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND KENNETH FERGUSON, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. TDC-14-3613 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendants Officer Terrance Walker and Prince George’s County, Maryland submit before this Court their Supplemented Motion To Compel (“the Motion”) (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff Kenneth Ferguson has not submitted a response to the Motion. The Court has reviewed the Motion and applicable law. No hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons presented below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Court hereby adopts the factual and procedural background laid out in the Memorandum Opinion for this case dated November 9, 2016 (ECF No. 57). DISCUSSION Defendants served Plaintiff with twenty-nine (29) interrogatories and nineteen (19) requests for production of documents. Defs.’ Ex. 1.1-1.2. The Court has reviewed the discovery request submitted by Defendants. The Court DENIES Interrogatory No. 23 as not being relevant to either the claims or defenses of the parties. The remainder of the requested interrogatories are relevant and discoverable. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ discovery requests. Even if Plaintiff had provided an opposition to the Motion, any objections therein 1 Dockets.Justia.com would be considered waived. If a party fails to timely serve objections and responses to discovery requests, the party waives any objections unless the Court finds good cause to excuse the failure to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Defendants’ supplemental motion will therefore be granted in part. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion. November 22, 2016 /s/ Charles B. Day United States Magistrate Judge CBD/xl 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.