Fields v. Maue et al

Filing 135

ORDER DENYING 130 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/29/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
JERRY WITHOFF and JOSEPH DURHAM, )
)
)
Defendants.
MICHAEL FIELDS,

Case No. 3:12-cv-1170-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Exclude Testimony and Evidence filed by
Plaintiff, Michael Fields, on April 13, 2016 (Doc. 130). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is DENIED.
This matter is set for trial on May 9, 2016. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)
provides that 30 days prior to trial, the parties must file certain information about the evidence they
will seek to present at trial including witnesses, deposition designations, and exhibits. Rule
37(a)(3)(A) states that if these disclosures are not timely made, the opposing party may file a
motion to compel and for sanctions. Rule 37(c) goes on to provide that if such disclosures are not
made, the information or witnesses may not be used by the offending party at trial unless the
failure to disclose was “substantially justified or is harmless.” After allowing the offending party
an opportunity to be heard, the Court may also impose other sanctions, including attorney fees, a
negative jury instruction, and other sanctions listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).

Id. at

37(c)(1)(A)-(C).
Plaintiff filed his Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures in a timely manner (Doc. 129). Defendants,
however, did not file their disclosures. The Court finds that the failure to file Rule 26(a)(3)
Page 1 of 2

disclosures is harmless.
This is a simple matter: Plaintiff claims that he was retaliated against by two correctional
officers after the submitted grievances or complaints about the conditions of his confinement over
the course of a few months in 2012. The witnesses are limited to the parties and a few other
employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections, with whom Plaintiff is familiar. The
exhibits also are materials that have been disclosed in this matter through the discovery process.
To the extent that there is any dispute as to witnesses who may provide deposition testimony at
trial, such issues can be readily resolved prior to trial. While Plaintiff is technically correct in
indicating that such disclosures are mandatory, it has been the practice of this Court to not require
these disclosures in 42 U.S.C. §1983 cases because of limited nature of these lawsuits. Such
cases are exempt from initial disclosures and discovery, See Rule 26(a)(1)(B) and Local Rule 26.1,
and are not the type of cases that involve lengthy witness lists, involved and disputed exhibit lists,
or much deposition testimony. While this matter may be been delayed through the discovery
process, and there are some issues that require resolution, there is no prejudice or surprise to
Plaintiff that would warrant sanctions.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony and Evidence is
DENIED (Doc. 130). Any issues involving witnesses, exhibits, and testimony will be discussed
at the Final Pretrial Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 29, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 2 of 2