White v. ODRC Director et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LARRY WHITE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ODRC DIRECTOR, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:24-cv-270
District Judge Matthew W. McFarland
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
ORDER
This case is before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff’s “Objection to Defendant’s Responses
to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents and Request for Deadline for Defendants to
Produce Requested Documents”1 (Doc. #38), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion Instanter (Doc. #41), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion (Doc.
#42).
I. 	Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff’s Motion Instanter
In Defendant’s Motion, Defendants request leave to file their response to Plaintiff’s motion
instanter. 	(Doc. #41). 	Defendants’ counsel, who missed the response deadline by one day,
explains that she missed the deadline due to other pressing case obligations, namely a deposition
in another county. Id. at 272. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ request, noting that this is the second
time Defendants have attempted to file an untimely response. (Doc. #42, PageID #278).
1 The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing (Doc. #38) as a motion to compel discovery.
Case: 1:24-cv-00270-MWM-PBS Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Given that Defendants filed their Motion one day after the response deadline and that no
prior extensions have been granted, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. #41) is hereby GRANTED.
Defendants’ Response (Doc. #41-1) is accepted as filed.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he received Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s request
for documents on September 25, 2025. (Doc. #38, PageID #252). Although Defendants provided
some of the requested documents, Defendants did not provide: (1) “All electronic facility messages
issued by Le.C.I.’s Chaplin Department via Chaplin Smith and Chaplin Palmer’s office from July
2023 – Present,” and (2) “Restrictive Housing monitor sheets which are posted on every cell door
in Restrictive Housing and depicts meals, showers, recreation[,] etc., and [whether] they were
[received] or refused. 3-10-24 to 4-1-24[.]” 	Id. at 251-53. 	Plaintiff asks the Court to compel
Defendants to produce both sets of documents. Id. at 254.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that a party may “obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
If the opposing party fails to produce requested discovery documents, a party may file a
motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). When filing a motion to compel, the moving party
must “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer
with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without
court action.” Id. Additionally, pursuant to the Local Rules of this Court, the parties must first
exhaust “extrajudicial means for resolving their differences” before filing a motion related to
discovery. 	S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.1. 	See Inhalation Plastics, Inc. v. Medex Cardio-Pulmonary,
Inc., No. 2:07-CV-116, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35585, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2010) (McCann
Case: 1:24-cv-00270-MWM-PBS Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
King, M.J.) (“The obligation of counsel to meet and confer to resolve differences as to discovery
disputes is a requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as of the Local Rules of
this Court.”).
Additionally, “[t]he proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the initial burden of
proving that the information sought is relevant.” Gruenbaum v. Werner Enters., 270 F.R.D. 298,
302 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2010) (McCann King, M.J.) (citation omitted). “While a plaintiff should
‘not be denied access to information necessary to establish her claim,’ a plaintiff may not be
‘permitted to go fishing and a trial court retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is
too broad and oppressive.’” Johnson v. Gallia Cty. Comm’rs, No. 2:20-CV-65, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 34173, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2021) (Preston Deavers, M.J.) (quoting In re Ohio
Execution Protocol Litigation, 845 F.3d 231, 236 (6th Cir. 2016)).
Plaintiff failed to comply with not only the Local Rules of this Court, but also the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Steinmetz v. Harrison, No. 1:14-CV-829, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
97046, at *3 (S.D. Ohio July 24, 2015) (Litkovitz, M.J.). 	Under the Local Rules of this Court,
Plaintiff must exhaust all extrajudicial means for resolving discovery deficiencies prior to asking
this Court to intervene. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.1. Plaintiff must also include a certification affirming
his efforts to confer with Defendant in good faith pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
Plaintiff did not disclose any efforts to confer with Defendant prior to filing his Motion,
nor did Plaintiff attach supplemental documentation to his Motion demonstrating an effort to
confer with Defendant via external communications or outreach. (Doc. #38). Plaintiff could have
communicated with Defendant in good faith via “telephone, letter correspondence, or email,” but
failed to do so. O’Malley v. NaphCare Inc., 311 F.R.D. 461, 464 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (Newman,
Case: 1:24-cv-00270-MWM-PBS Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
M.J.). 	Defendants’ counsel noted in her Response that “Plaintiff never served the undersigned
with any objections, much less make any effort to meet and confer with her, before seeking the
intervention of the Court to obtain the discovery he now seeks.” 	(Doc. #41-1, PageID #275).
Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants, arguing that he “has sent multiple [correspondences] to
Defense Counsel via regular U.S. mail requesting all above mentioned documents, yet, plaintiff
has been stonewalled in his efforts.” (Doc. #42, PageID #282). However, Plaintiff indicates that
he received Defendants’ responses to his requests for production of documents on September 22,
2025, and Plaintiff filed his Motion September 29, 2025. (Doc. #38, PageID #252). There is no
indication that Plaintiff conferred Defendants’ counsel after he received the response and prior to
filing his Motion.
In sum, Plaintiff did not confer in good faith and also failed to exhaust extrajudicial
remedies prior to filing his Motion. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery did not
satisfy the procedural requirements of this Court. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff Motion to Compel
Discovery (Doc. #38) is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Response to Plaintiff’s Motion
Instanter (Doc. #41) is GRANTED. Defendants’ Response (Doc. #41-1)
is accepted as filed; and
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #38) is DENIED.
June 23, 2026 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00270-MWM-PBS Doc #: 53 Filed: 06/23/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>