Johnson v. Randle et al

Filing 142

ORDER denying 125 Motion to Compel; denying 125 Motion for Sanctions; denying 129 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 140 Motion to Strike. Defendants shall file their reply to plaintiff's response to 131 MOTION for Summary Judgment on or before January 18, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 12/28/11. (amv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LARRY JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL RANDLE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10−cv–0135–MJR−SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Larry Johnson, an inmate at Illinois’ Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), filed this civil rights action alleging deprivations of his
Constitutional rights. Specifically, Mr. Johnson alleges that the Illinois Department of Corrections’
planned lacto-ovo-vegetarian (“LVO”) diet does not provide him adequate nutrition, and that
Menard’s administered LVO diet is even more nutritionally (and Constitutionally) deficient.
Mr. Johnson’s suit was filed in February 2010. Now before the Court are four motions:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Compel Production of discovery materials (Doc. 125), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 125), Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File any
Possible Dispositive Motions (Doc. 129), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response
(Doc. 140).1 For the reasons explained below, the court rules as follows.

Also pending are Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 126), Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 131), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 135). Those motions will be ruled upon at a later
date.

1

A. Plaintiff’s November Motion to Compel
In late September, a discovery dispute hearing was held regarding Plaintiff’s earlier motion to
compel discovery. The Court, in an order dated September 28, 2011, granted Plaintiff’s earlier
motion in part, and directed Defendants to provide Johnson various documents. In November
2011, Plaintiff again moved to compel production—this time, he moves that the Court compel
production of a litany of specific discovery responses he claims were incomplete, misleading, or
both.
Plaintiff first asserts that the lack of signed attestations by Defendants Griswold, Hanna,
Winters and Lillard on various sets of interrogatories is in flagrant disregard of the Federal Rules and
this Court’s order. Defendants’ response brief indicates that the defendants reviewed their answers
to supplemental interrogatories but were not in the same location as their counsel and, therefore,
could not make a signed attestation. Defendants further assert they will forward those attestations
to Plaintiff when they are available. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, as it relates to the attestations, will
be DENIED. It is expected that Defendants will provide those attestations as soon as practicable.
Plaintiff next complains that Defendant Randle’s attestations as to the truth of his
interrogatories are not notarized.

As Defendants correctly point out, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure requires a signature from a person who makes the answers, but not a notarized signature.
Insofar as Johnson’s motion pertains to Defendant Randle’s attestations, his motion will be
DENIED.
Next, Plaintiff claims that Defendants supplemental answers to interrogatories, and some
responsive discovery documents were delivered to him a full week after the date this Court ordered
those documents delivered. Defendants respond by exhibiting UPS receipt showing that a 22pound box was mailed to Plaintiff Johnson’s Menard address on October 11, 2011. Insofar as his
motion to compel pertains to those documents, it is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiff further claims that some of those supplemental answers were false. Specifically,
Plaintiff claims Defendants are lying when they assert there are no typewritten LVO menus for the
timeframe at issue in this case. To support his assertion, Plaintiff attaches a typewritten LVO menu.
But that menu is from 2011, a time period that is not the subject of Plaintiff’s discovery requests or
of the instant case. Defendants’ answer—that the requested documents do not exist—is sufficient if
it is true.
Similarly, Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant Griswold’s answer—that there are no
responsive documents concerning textured vegetable protein’s health effects—is false. Johnson
claims that Griswold’s answer is not credible because Griswold and other IDOC defendants have
been involved in several recent soy-related cases. But Plaintiff Johnson has not asserted that he has
personal knowledge of the discovery completed in those cases, and offers nothing substantial to
indicate that Defendant Griswold is lying. At most, Plaintiff shows that he disagrees with (or is
disappointed by) some of Defendants’ discovery responses.

But Defendants’ responses are

sufficient.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of various discovery-related documents
will be DENIED.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
In his motion to compel discovery, the plaintiff moved for sanctions against the Defendants
“for their disregard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for ignoring Court ordered deadlines to
produce documents and answer interrogatories, and for making false and misleading representations
to the Court” (Doc. 125, 6). While deadlines may have been missed, none of Defendants’ actions in
this case appear to have been done in bad faith. Further, Plaintiff has had adequate opportunity to
examine all discovery material Defendants disclosed to him. Sanctions are therefore inappropriate,
and Mr. Johnson’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 125) will be DENIED.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
In November 2011, claiming that he had not “been able to complete a possible dispositive
motion” and that he “honestly believe[d] that summary judgment in his favor” was warranted, Mr.
Johnson moved for an extension of time to file any “possible dispositive motions.” Plaintiff had
adequate time to craft his any dispositive motions, and was not asking for more time because he had
a motion in hand, nearly ready to file. Admitting motion was a “possibility” indicates Plaintiff had
failed to start such a motion, not that he was having trouble completing it. Further, an additional
extension is inappropriate here, where Plaintiff has merely asserted a speculative possibility of
crafting such a motion. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File any Possible Dispositive
Motions (Doc. 129) will therefore be DENIED.
D. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Response Motion
Defendants moved for summary judgment on November 18, 2011. On December 12, Mr.
Johnson filed a 73-page response brief, along with over 1,500 pages of exhibits. Defendants moved
to strike that voluminous response brief on December 22, citing Local Rule 7.1(d) for the
proposition that “[n]o brief shall be submitted which is longer than 20 double-spaced typewritten
pages.” SDIL-LR 7.1(d).
Defendants are correct: Plaintiff’s response motion fails to comport with local procedural
rules. But this is a more complicated case than is typical, and Plaintiff is acting pro se. So in the
interest of judicial economy, the Motion to Strike Mr. Johnson’s Response Motion (Doc. 140) will
be DENIED. Defendants will be granted extra time (20 days) and extra pages (20 pages) to make a
counterargument in a reply brief.

DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
(Doc. 125), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 125), and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
for Extension of Time to File any Possible Dispositive Motions (Doc. 129).
Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 140) is also DENIED, but Defendants’ will be given
extra time and pages to file a brief replying to Plaintiff’s response brief (Doc. 136). Defendants shall
file their reply brief, not to exceed 20 pages, on or before January 18, 2011.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 28, 2011
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge