SUMRALL v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

AMMON RA SUMRALL, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : NO. 5:21-CV-187-MTT-MSH : GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ : ORDER Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 30) and Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file and respond to motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 34). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied, and Defendants’ motion for an extension of time is granted in part and denied in part. I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendants to “amend” their responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories. Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 1, ECF No. 30. In support thereof, Plaintiff argues Defendants provided “evasive responses and/or meritless objections[.]” Id. Defendants, however, responded to Plaintiff’s numerous discovery requests, including two subsequent sets of interrogatories. See Defs.’ Resp. in Opp. 1-2, ECF No. 32. Plaintiff’s general contention that Defendants’ responses and objections are “evasive” or “meritless” does not warrant compelling discovery. See Rong Ran v. Infinite Energy, Inc., No. 1:07–cv–249–MMP–AK, 2010 WL 148240, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan.12, 2010) (“Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's [discovery] requests, and the fact that

Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants' responses does not provide a basis for this Court to order any relief.”); see also Jacox v. Dep’t of Def., No. 5:06-cv-182-HL, 2007 SL 1412647, at *1 (M.D. Ga. May 10, 2007) (“Just because Jacox was unhappy with Defendants’ [interrogatory] responses does not make them actionable.”). Additionally, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendant Ashley to produce a video recording from July 31, 2019. Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 1-2. According to Defendant

Ashley, this video “no longer exists[.]” Defs.’ Resp. in Opp. 4. A “[c]ourt cannot compel something that does not exist.” Larweth v. Magellan Health, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-823-Orl- 41DCI, 2019 WL 11866498, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2019). As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is DENIED. II. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time

Defendants seek an extension of time both to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to file their own motion for summary judgment. Defs.’ Mot. for Extension of Time 1, ECF No. 34. Defendants, however, subsequently filed a response to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 35). Therefore, their request for additional time to respond is DENIED as moot. Nevertheless, Defendants’ request for an extension

of time to file their own summary judgment motion is GRANTED. Defendants have through and including June 9, 2022, to file any dispositive motion. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 30) is denied, and Defendants’ motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 34) is granted in part and denied in part.

SO ORDERED, this 24th day of May, 2022. /s/ Stephen Hyles UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE