Wingfield v. Clark et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 36 MOTION for Admission and Disclosure of Late Discovery Request filed by Joshua E. Wingfield, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/19/12. (mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00630-REB-KLM
JOSHUA E. WINGFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
S.O.R.T. SGT. CLARK,
S.O.R.T. DEPUTY BRIESKE,
S.O.R.T. DEPUTY REID,
S.O.R.T. DEPUTY WOODS, and
FOUR UNKNOWN S.O.R.T. DEPUTIES under Sgt. Clarks [sic] command on 2-23-11 who
participated in the use force,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Admission and
Disclosure of Late Discovery Request [Docket No. 36; Filed March 22, 2012] (the
“Motion”). On March 30, 2012, Defendants filed a Response [#40], and Plaintiff submitted
a Reply on April 12, 2012 [#42]. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to
interrogatories and admissions as well as production of his own medical records.1
On October 18, 2011, the Court set the discovery deadline for March 9, 2012. Min.
Entry, [#31] at 1. The Court permitted fifteen Interrogatories per side, fifteen Requests for
Production of Documents per side, and fifteen Requests for Admissions per side. Id. at 2.

1

On March 26, 2012, the Court issued a Minute Order ruling on Plaintiff’s request to amend
his Complaint and ordering Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion with respect to discovery
requests; thus, the Motion remains outstanding as to the discovery requests. See Min. Ord., [#38].

-1-

The Court ordered the responding party to serve its answers/objections within thirty days
of service of the discovery requests. Id. The Court further ordered that written discovery
must be served on the opposing party no later than thirty-three days prior to the close of
discovery. Id.
Plaintiff acknowledges the Court’s Order requiring service of written discovery
requests no later than thirty-three days prior to March 9, 2012. See Mot., [#36] at 1. He
admits that he served his requests less than thirty-three days before the March 9, 2012
deadline. See id. However, he states that his tardiness was due to Defendants’ delay in
providing identification of the deputies who are now named as Defendants, as well as other
information allegedly provided on an unspecified date in February 2012. See id. He further
states that he was unable to finish reviewing those materials until late February. See id.
In addition, Plaintiff states that he has twice requested copies of his medical records but
that Defendants have refused to provide them. See id. at 1-2.
In their Response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s discovery requests: 1) exceed
the number of requests he is permitted pursuant to the Court’s order of October 18, 2011,
and 2) are untimely (Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s discovery requests were mailed on
March 7, 2012 and received by Defendants two days later). See Resp., [#40] at 1, 3. They
state that the discovery requests consist of fifteen interrogatories and eleven requests for
admission directed at each Defendant, and also at deputies who are not named parties in
this case. See id. They assert that the written discovery requests are identical for each
recipient. See id.; see also Ex. 1 to Resp., [#40-1] (letter from Plaintiff enclosing a copy of
“Interrogatories and Admissions for Deputy Brieske”). On March 12, 2012, Defendants
responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests by objecting to them as untimely and as
-2-

exceeding the numerical limits set by the Court. See Exs. 2-5 to Resp., [#40-2, -3, -4, -5].
Additionally, Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiff informing him that they would not respond
to the written discovery directed at the unnamed parties. See Ex. 6 to Resp., [#40-6] at 2.
With respect to Plaintiff’s request for his medical files, Defendants assert that the
files were provided to him on January 17, 2012 as part of Defendants’ Responses to
Plaintiff’s Request for Discovery. See Ex. 7 to Resp., [#40-7] at 2. In Plaintiff’s Request
for Discovery, he sought “all medical files related to the incident to include the pod logs,
nurse reports, emails, narratives, supplementals, drugs administered to me while I was
dead, after I came back to life.” Id. Defendants responded in part that “[t]he medical files
related to the incident, inclusive of the medication record, are being provided to Plaintiff
simultaneously with this response (Bates Nos. AC000020-000073).” Id. Defendants further
aver that all other discovery responses were also provided to Plaintiff on that date, including
the video of the underlying incident, which they state that Plaintiff viewed on January 26,
January 31, and February 22, 2012. See Resp., [#40] at 3, 3 n.3.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#36] is DENIED. Defendants represent
that they have provided Plaintiff’s medical records to him, thus Plaintiff’s request for them
is moot. Regarding Plaintiff’s request to issue written discovery requests out of time, the
Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish good cause for such modification of the
Scheduling Order. Plaintiff provides no explanation for his inability to timely complete
review of the discovery information he received on January 17, 2012 in order to formulate
and timely issue discovery requests by February 7, 2012, other than the conclusory
allegation that “defendants . . . instruct jail staff to make it difficult . . . to review discovery.”
[#42] at 1. In the absence of good cause, the Court declines to modify the Scheduling
-3-

Order.
Dated: April 19, 2012

-4-