Pruitt v. Shepard et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
________________________________________________________________
A.T. PRUITT, III, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 24-cv-1168-STA-tmp
)
CORECIVIC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
________________________________________________________________
Before 	the 	court 	by 	order 	of 	reference 	is 	Defendant
CoreCivic’s Motion to Compel.1 (ECF 17.) For the following reasons,
the motion is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, 	who 	is 	incarcerated 	at 	Hardeman 	County
Correctional Facility, filed this action pro se on August 15, 2024.
(ECF 	No. 	1). 	Defendant 	CoreCivic 	filed 	their 	Answer 	on 	September
10, 	2025. 	(ECF 	No. 	12). 	Because 	Plaintiff 	is 	pro 	se 	and
incarcerated, 	this 	action 	is 	exempt 	from 	initial 	disclosures 	and
from a Rule 26(f) conference. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv),
26(f)(1). On September 22, 2025, Defendant served Interrogatories
and 	Requests 	for 	Production 	of 	Documents 	on 	Plaintiff. 	(ECF 	No.
1This motion was referred to the undersigned for determination on
December 4, 2025. (ECF No. 18.)
Case 1:24-cv-01168-STA-tmp Document 24 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

- 2 -
17-2.) 	On 	November 	5, 	2025, 	after 	Plaintiff 	failed 	to 	respond,
Defendant 	sent 	a 	letter 	to 	Plaintiff 	explaining 	that 	Plaintiff’s
discovery 	responses 	were 	overdue 	and 	that 	Defendant 	intended 	to
file a motion to compel if they did not receive responses to their
written discovery within 14 days. (ECF No. 17-4.) After receiving
no response, Defendant filed their Motion to Compel on December 4,
2025. 	(ECF 	No. 	17.) 	As 	of 	the 	date 	of 	this 	order, 	Plaintiff 	has
not 	responded 	to 	Defendant’s 	written 	discovery 	requests, 	nor 	has
Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 governs motions to compel
discovery. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	37. 	It 	provides, 	in 	pertinent 	part,
that:
On 	notice 	to 	other 	parties 	and 	all 	affected 	persons, 	a
party 	may 	move 	for 	an 	order 	compelling 	disclosure 	or
discovery. The motion 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.
Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	37(a)(1). 	A 	party 	seeking 	discovery 	may 	move 	for
an 	order 	compelling 	an 	answer 	or 	production 	in 	response 	to 	their
discovery requests made pursuant to Rules 33 and 34. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 	37(B)(iii)-(iv). 	The 	Rules 	require 	a 	party 	to 	respond 	to
interrogatories 	and 	requests 	for 	production 	of 	documents 	within
thirty days of service, unless a shorter or longer time is ordered
by the court or agreed to by stipulation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2)
Case 1:24-cv-01168-STA-tmp Document 24 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

- 3 -
and 34(b)(2)(A). Local Rule 7.2(a)(2) provides that the responses
to 	motions 	must 	be 	“filed 	within 	14 	days 	after 	service 	of 	the
motion” and that “[f]ailure to respond timely to any motion, other
than one requesting dismissal of a claim or action, may be deemed
good grounds for granting the motion.” LR 7.2(a)(2).
Defendant 	served 	their 	Interrogatories 	and 	Requests 	for
Production of Documents on Plaintiff on September 22, 2025, meaning
that, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(2) and
34(b)(2)(A), Plaintiff had until October 22, 2025, to provide his
discovery responses. (ECF No. 17-2.) As of the date of this order,
Plaintiff 	has 	provided 	no 	responses. 	Defendant 	then 	filed 	their
Motion to Compel on December 4, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has
not 	responded 	to 	the 	Motion 	to 	Compel, 	and 	it 	is 	well 	past 	the
fourteen days required by Local Rule 7.2(a). Therefore, because of
Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Motion to Compel in a timely
manner, 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	is 	granted. 	Plaintiff 	is
hereby 	warned 	that 	any 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	order 	or 	any
future 	order 	is 	grounds 	for 	the 	dismissal 	of 	this 	complaint 	with
prejudice. As to the other forms of relief requested in the Motion,
those are denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED.
Plaintiff 	shall 	respond 	in 	full 	to 	the 	Defendant’s 	discovery
requests within fourteen days of the date of this order.
Case 1:24-cv-01168-STA-tmp Document 24 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

- 4 -
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
February 4, 2026
Date
Case 1:24-cv-01168-STA-tmp Document 24 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>