Augusta v. Winbigler et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 the Plaintiff's "Motion for Court to Demand Defendants Help to Transcripts Response to Defendants Interrogatories and Request to Produce to Plaintiff the Request Docu. Request for Discovery Ex tension Date and Time." The Plaintiff's Motion is granted only insofar as the Plaintiff is granted an extension to December 16, 2017 to answer the interrogatories and requests to produce which Defendants propounded upon him on August 29, 2017. The Plaintiff's Motion is denied in all other respects. See written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 11/16/2017. (KZ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 16 November, 2017 10:49:28 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
QUENNEL AUGUSTA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:16-cv-04115-SLD-JEH

KYLE WINBIGLER, et al.,
Defendants.
Order
Now before the Court is the Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court to Demand
Defendants Help to Transcripts Response to Defendants Interrogatories and
Request to Produce to Plaintiff the Request Docu. Request for Discovery
Extension Date and Time.” (Doc. 35). The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth below.
In his Motion, the Plaintiff requests that Defendants: provide him a copy
of the court transcripts in his case 16-CF-7, People of the State of Illinois v. Augusta;
provide him pictures of Defendant Winbigler’s patrol car (specifically its tinted
windows); and provide him a street map of Galesburg, Illinois. The Plaintiff also
requests an extension of the time to respond to Defendants’ interrogatories and
requests to produce and a subpoena for the Defendants to testify “just in case
[he] may want to ask them questions!”
The Plaintiff’s Motion is granted only insofar as he requests an extension
of time to respond to the Defendants’ discovery requests. Plaintiff must respond
to their discovery requests by December 16, 2017.

The Plaintiff’s Motion is

denied in all other respects for the following reasons.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 states, in relevant part:
1

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of
Rule 26(b) to produce and permit the requesting party or its
representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in
the responding party’s possession, custody, or control . . . .
FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1) (emphasis added). First, the Court does not have the
authority to pay for a transcript from the Plaintiff’s state court case. See Smith v.
Campagna, No. 94 C 7628, 1996 WL 364770, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 1996) (“[T]his
court has no authority to finance or pay for a party’s discovery expenses even
though the party has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)”). This is also not a case in which the Plaintiff has a right to free
copies of the requested transcript at the government’s expense as he is not
proceeding as an indigent in a criminal or habeas corpus proceeding or in forma
pauperis on appeal in another type of proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (detailing
the circumstances under which the United States shall pay the fees for
transcripts). Also, Defendants correctly point out that the Plaintiff’s request that
the Court order them to procure a copy of the transcript at their cost has no basis
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.
Second, the Court will not order the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff
photographs of Defendant Winbigler’s patrol car or a street map of Galesburg
given their representations that they do not possess the requested pictures of car
windows or the street map. Moreover, the Court will not order Defendants to
obtain such things where the Seventh Circuit has said, “[T]he fact that a party
could obtain a document if it tried hard enough and maybe if it didn’t try hard at
all does not mean that the document is in its possession, custody, or control; in
fact it means the opposite.” Chaveriat v. Williams Pipe Line Co., 11 F.3d 1420, 1427
(7th Cir. 1993). Additionally, the Defendants’ point is well taken that the street

2

map is equally accessible to the Plaintiff by way of the same means they would
use, i.e. Google Maps.
Third, and finally, the Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas is denied as it is so
underdeveloped as to preclude the Court from addressing it.
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion is granted only insofar as
the Plaintiff is granted an extension to December 16, 2017 to answer the
interrogatories and requests to produce which Defendants propounded upon
him on August 29, 2017, and the Motion is denied in all other respects.
It is so ordered.
Entered on November 16, 2017.

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3