Gevas v. Shearing et al

Filing 313

ORDER: DENYING 289 MOTION for Order to filed by David C Gevas, DENYING 290 MOTION to Compel filed by David C Gevas, DENYING 292 MOTION to Compel filed by David C Gevas, MOOTING 294 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply a s to 213 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David C Gevas, DENYING 306 MOTION to Compel filed by David C Gevas, GRANTING 308 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David C Gevas, DENYING 309 MOTION for Leave to File filed by David C Gevas. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 303 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Responses due by 3/18/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 2/26/16. (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 various motions:
1. “Motion for Court to Appoint Neutral Expert Witness” filed by Plaintiff on November 9,
2015 (Doc. 289). This Motion is DENIED. Currently pending before the Court are Motions for
Summary Judgment (one of which was pending at the time that Plaintiff filed this motion). At no
point in this Motion does Plaintiff indicate that he requires such evidence to respond to a Motion
for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff has not provided an affidavit to support such a claim as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). In any event, this Court has denied such
requests in the past and Plaintiff has offered no convincing reason why those decisions should be
reconsidered (Docs. 174, 226).
2. Motion for Order Compelling Discovery filed by Plaintiff on November 9, 2015 (Doc. 290)
and Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on December 1, 2015 (Doc. 306). These Motions are
DENIED. Defendants correctly note that the “Sick Call Referral Log Books” are not subject to
the Order requiring initial disclosures (Doc. 43). Plaintiff also has not attached the discovery

Page 1 of 2

request that sought this information. Defendants further have indicated that they will forward the
responsive document to Plaintiff after reviewing the same (Doc. 307).
3. Amended Motion for Order Compelling Discovery filed by Plaintiff on November 9, 2015
(Doc. 292) and Motion for Leave to File filed by Plaintiff on December 21, 2015 (Doc. 309).
These Motions are DENIED. Plaintiff seeks movement logs that have been the subject of various
motions to compel as outlined in this Court’s August 27, 2015 Order (Doc. 258). Defendants
have responded that no such documents exist or have been found, but that they will supplement if
they exist or can be found. At this point, the logs either exist or they do not and Defendants state
that no relevant logs exist. The Court will accept counsel’s representations, as an officer of the
Court, that they have searched for the documents and they cannot be found.
4. Motion for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Plaintiff on November 16, 2015
(Doc. 294). This Motion is MOOT. Plaintiff has filed a response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 213) on November 30, 2015 (Doc. 301).
5. Motion for Extension of Time to File Response filed by Plaintiff on December 21, 2015
(Doc. 308). This Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff has indicated that he requires more time to
respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 303). He notes that he has not received
discovery (which has been resolved by this Order) and that he has been ill (Docs. 310, 311, and
312). Plaintiff’s response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 303) is due by March 18,
2016. It is unlikely that future extensions will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 26, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2