Gevas v. Shearing et al

Filing 226

ORDER GRANTING 179 , GRANTING IN PART 180 , DENYING 181 , DENYING 183 , GRANTING 184 , DENYING 189 , DENYING 190 , DENYING 191 , DENYING 195 , DENYING 196 , DENYING 197 ,DENYING AS MOOT 198 , MOOTING 199 , TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 205 , MOOTING 208 , DENYING 210 , DENYING 211 , GRANTING 216 , DENYING 217 , TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 218 , TAKING UNDER ADVISEMENT 220 , and GRANTING 223 . Action due by 7/10/2015 re Wexford/IDOC contract; Response to 205 MOTION to Compel and 218 MOTION to Compel due by 7/7/15; Response to 213 MOTION for Summary Judgment due by 8/3/2015; Dispositive motion filing deadline extended to 7/31/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/30/15. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
DR. ROBERT SHEARING, WEXFORD)
HEALTH SOURCES, INC., JEREMY)
BUTLER, RONALD SKIDMORE, NICKI)
MALLEY,
ASSISTANT
WARDEN)
KIMBERLY BUTLER, and WARDEN)
)
RICHARD HARRINGTON,
)
)
Defendants.
DAVID C. GEVAS,

Case No. 3:14-cv-134-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are a number of Motions (Docs. 179, 180, 181, 183, 184,
189, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 217, 218, 220, and 223)
which will be taken in turn.
On April 21, 2015, this Court issued an Order on various discovery disputes and requests
(Doc. 174). As a result of that Order, Plaintiff was given a procedure by which to conduct and
view various discovery:
1. Plaintiff was directed to inform the Court if he required copies of documents
produced pursuant to the Protective Order (Doc. 175);
2. Plaintiff was directed to acquire and make financial arrangements with a
stenographer for depositions and direct the stenographer to contact the Court to
make arrangements for the timing and location of depositions; and,
3. Plaintiff was directed to fill out subpoenas for Court inspection if he seeks to
acquire documents/deposition for non-parties.

Page 1 of 7

While Plaintiff has filed a notice of deposition,1 the record does not reflect that he has submitted
subpoenas for review. Plaintiff now seeks, among other things, various types of relief related to
that Order.
DISCUSSION
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File is GRANTED (Doc. 179). Plaintiff seeks
until May 22, 2015 to respond to Defendants’ (Harrington, Butler, Malley and Skidmore) requests
to produce and interrogatories. Response served by May 22, 2015 are deemed timely.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of time to Complete Discovery is GRANTED IN PART
(Doc. 180). Plaintiff seeks additional time to conduct depositions. See paragraph 19, infra.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Assistance is DENIED (Doc. 181)

Plaintiff seeks Court

assistance in finding stenographers to assist him in deposing witnesses. The Court has no
obligation to assist Plaintiff in securing a stenographer to take depositions nor does any rule of law
allow the Court to compel a stenographer to work for Plaintiff and provide services. As a
courtesy, the Court has offered to coordinate with such a person in light of Plaintiff’s
incarceration. However, such courtesy does not extend to doing Plaintiff’s legwork for him.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed on Medical Malpractice Claims is DENIED (Doc. 183). As
noted in the Order dated April 9, 2014, State law requires Plaintiff to provide a supporting affidavit
for a medical malpractice claim (Doc. 5). As set forth in this Court’s April 21, 2015 Order (Doc.
174), a medical expert is not required at trial on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim. The Court
1

Plaintiff has submitted one document entitled “Notice of Deposition Upon Oral Examination”
and lists Sarah Johnson, S.A. Godinez, and Louis Schicker (Doc. 187). At this point, the Court
does not offer an opinion as to the sufficiency of this notice.
Page 2 of 7

adopts and incorporates Defendants’ (Doc. 192) thorough response to this Motion setting forth the
difference between a state law claim of medical malpractice and an Eighth Amendment claim of
deliberate indifference.

5. Defendants’ Request for Extension of Time is GRANTED (Doc. 184). Defendants seek until
May 19, 2015 to respond to Plaintiff’s requests to produce (initial and supplemental) and
interrogatories. Responses served by that date are deemed timely.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 189). Plaintiff seeks complete answers from
Defendants Shearing and Wexford to interrogatories 1 and 2. The Court has reviewed the
discovery requests and finds the responses to be sufficient. Of course, Defendants are obligated
to supplement their responses once their investigation is complete or additional information
becomes available.

7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 190). Plaintiff seeks a non-“evasive”
answers to an interrogatory that seeks an explanation of why he was prescribed Hytrin instead of
Flowmax. The response essentially states that the two medications are interchangeable. The
response appears sufficient and not evasive.

8. Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is DENIED (Doc. 191). Again, and for the
reasons set forth in this Court’s previous Orders, Plaintiff appears capable and competent to
litigate this matter without the assistance of counsel.

Page 3 of 7

9. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appointment Expert is DENIED (Doc. 195). For the reasons set forth in
this Court’s previous Order (Doc. 174), an expert will not be appointed in this matter.

10. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 196). If Plaintiff believes that there is a
relevant discrepancy in discovery responses, then he should point them out in responses to motions
for summary judgment or at trial.

11. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and/or Strike is DENIED (Doc. 197). Plaintiff has now
received a copy of his deposition for review and an errata sheet.

12. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED AS MOOT (Doc. 198). It appears that Defendant
Butler failed to respond to one of Plaintiff’s discovery requests but has now rectified the oversight.
The Court finds that the failure to respond was inadvertent and that Plaintiff suffered no prejudice
in light of the extensions of time that are directed in this Order.

13. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is MOOT (Doc. 199) (see paragraph 21, infra).

14. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT (Doc. 205). Plaintiff
seeks copies of “movement logs” during his stay at Menard from 8/21/13 to 9/4/13. He states that
he served this discovery request upon Defendants Butler, Malley, and Skidmore but that he has not
received a response. These Defendants have not filed a response. Defendants SHALL respond
to the Motion within 7 days of the date of this order indicating the status of their response to
Plaintiff’s discovery request.

Page 4 of 7

15. Defendants’ Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is MOOT (Doc. 208). Defendants note
that, at the time the Motion was filed, various discovery motions were pending and that they
required additional time to file a dispositive motion. Since that time Defendants have filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 213).

16.

Plaintiff Motion to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 210).

Plaintiff seeks the following

documents: “All documents, items of evidence, sworn or unsworn statements or affidavits that
relate to the allegations made in Plaintiff’s complaint.” This request is overly broad and a
response will not be compelled.

17. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED (Doc. 211). Plaintiff has not demonstrated how
any of the documents requested are relevant to a claim or defense.

18. Defendants’ (Butler, Harrington, Malley, and Skidmore) Motion for Extension of Time is
GRANTED (Doc. 216). The dispositive Motion filing deadline is EXTENDED to July 31,
2015.

19. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Court Assistance is DENIED (Doc. 217). Plaintiff seeks
Court assistance in acquiring a stenographer. As indicated above, the Court has no obligation to
assist Plaintiff in securing a stenographer to take depositions nor can the Court compel any person
to provide such services. However, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff until July 24, 2015 to secure
a stenographer in order to proceed with depositions. No further extensions will be granted.

Page 5 of 7

Plaintiff is reminded that he should have the stenographer contact the Court, by that date, in order
to arrange a time for the depositions.

20. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT (Doc. 218). For the
same reasons as stated above in paragraph 14 regarding Doc. 205, relevant Defendants shall
respond to this motion within 7 days of the date of this Order.

21. Plaintiff’s Motion for Copy is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT (Doc. 220). Plaintiff
states that he has reviewed a copy of the contract between Wexford and the Illinois Department of
Corrections. He further states that he was able to view the document for 90 minutes and was only
able to reach page 85 of the documents. Pursuant to the Protective Order (Doc. 175) and this
Court’s previous discovery Order (Doc. 174), he requests a copy of the document in order to
respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and at trial. Defendants are directed to e-mail to
chambers a copy of the contract for in camera inspection by July 10, 2015. By that date, July 10,
2015, Plaintiff shall also file with the Court a notice indicating which of the 85 pages he did review
that he believes are relevant to his claims. In filing such a notice, the Plaintiff shall refer to this
Order.

22. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED (Doc. 223). Plaintiff shall file a response by August 3, 2015. This Court may
extend the deadline again if Plaintiff is able to depose his witnesses and he makes a showing,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), that their deposition testimony (or other
evidence) is necessary to justify his opposition.

Page 6 of 7

The general discovery deadline of May 8, 2015 has not been extended. However, the
Court may extend the deadline for the limited purpose of Plaintiff conducting depositions
(provided the procedures outlined by the Court above have been followed).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 7 of 7