Opinion ID: 2827791
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hart’s Motion to Compel Discovery

Text: Finally, Hart challenges a discovery ruling by the district court. On October 2, 2012 Hart sent a letter to defendants identifying various categories of discovery responses he found inadequate. Defense counsel promised to respond to the letter by November 30, 2012 but failed to do so. Then, in June 2013, defense counsel orally told Hart’s counsel that there were no deficiencies in defendants’ discovery responses and promised to draft a formal, written response to the letter. When the formal response was not forthcoming, Hart moved for an order compelling the defendants “to produce documents and provide information as requested in [his] October 2, 2012 discovery dispute letter.” The district court denied the motion. We review that ruling for an abuse of discretion. E.g., Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir. 2001). We will not reverse the district court’s ruling “absent a clear showing that the denial of discovery resulted in actual and substantial prejudice” to Hart. Id. We find no abuse of discretion here. In a thorough written order, the district court explained that Hart’s motion focused on the failure by defense counsel to respond to the October 2012 deficiency letter in writing but did not explain adequately the substance of the parties’ continuing discovery dispute. By the time Hart actually filed the motion in July No. 14-1347 31 2013 (seven months after the letter was sent), defendants had diligently provided discovery and answered Hart’s numerous written discovery requests. The court also found that Hart had failed to specify the discovery items that were still outstanding at the time the motion was filed. Hart has demonstrated neither an abuse of discretion nor actual and substantial prejudice. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.