J.S. v. Intown Properties I, LLC, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

J.S., Civil Action 2:25-cv-700 Plaintiff, District Judge Algenon L. Marbley v. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

INTOWN PROPERTIES I, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Defendant Intown I Properties, LLC’s (“Intown”) Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures (Doc. 59) are before the Court again. The filing is improper. Under this District’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery documents should be filed only to support motions pending before the Court. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(A) (“But disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) or (2) and the following discovery requests and responses must not be filed until they are used in the proceeding or the court orders filing: depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents or tangible things or to permit entry onto land, and requests for admission.”); Adams v. Farbota, 306 F.R.D. 563, 567 n.6 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2015) (“Parties typically serve their initial disclosures without filing them, because filing is not required.”). Because Defendant Intown’s initial disclosures were not filed to support any pending motion, and because the Court did not order Defendant Intown to file them, the Court STRIKES them from the public docket for the second time. (Doc. 59). The Court previously ordered Defendant Intown to cease filing these types of documents. (Doc. 36). Continued failure to comply with Court orders may result in sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 27, 2026 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE