Baird v. Godinez et al
Filing
110
SCHEDULING ORDER: Dispositive Motions re Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies due by 2/19/2016. Discovery due by 11/4/2016. Dispositive Motions due by 12/2/2016. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/10/2016 at 2:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Don ald G. Wilkerson. Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 3/6/2017 at 3:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/19/2017 at 1:30 PM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. Jury Trial set for 5/9/2017 at 9:00 AM in East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 1/20/16. (sgp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WILLIS BAIRD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADORE GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:14-cv-902-NJR-DGW
SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER
In addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the following procedures will apply to
this case. Plaintiff is WARNED that, while he may seek reasonable extensions by filing a
motion, he must follow the deadlines contained in this Scheduling Order and that he must attend
all conferences and hearings as directed. The failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action
for failure to prosecute.
I.
Initial Disclosures and Pretrial Filings
A.
If Plaintiff was assessed an initial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),
such initial filing fee must be paid, in full, by February 12, 2016. Failure to pay
the initial filing fee by the deadline may result in dismissal of this action.
B.
Plaintiff shall have until February 12, 2016 to produce to Defendants:
1.
Names of persons with knowledge of the incidents and a short description
of the subject of their knowledge;
2.
A statement of the injuries Plaintiff has suffered and the relief he seeks;
3.
A signed release for medical records (in cases where Plaintiff’s medical
Page 1 of 6
condition or care is at issue);
4.
If Plaintiff has sued any “John Does,” any information Plaintiff possesses
which will help identify the John Doe defendants, including but not limited
to:
physical
descriptions,
specific
job
assignments,
partial
names/nicknames, and locations and dates where plaintiff interacted with
the John Does.
(Note: Plaintiff shall produce the above information directly to Defendants; the information
shall NOT be filed with the Court).
C.
Defendants shall have until February 19, 2016 to produce to Plaintiff copies of the
following documents and information related to Plaintiff’s allegations:
1.
Incident reports;
2.
Grievances, along with any responses or other related materials, such as
grievance logs and counselor’s notes;
3.
Disciplinary tickets, along with any documents related to the resolution of
the tickets;
4.
Plaintiff’s cumulative counseling summary;
5.
Correspondence with the chaplain (religion claims only);
6.
Shakedown slips (when property is at issue);
7.
Reports and/or statements of persons with knowledge of the incidents;
8.
Names of persons with knowledge of the incidents and a short description
of the subject of their knowledge, to the extent this information is not
included in the documents produced to Plaintiff;
9.
Copies of relevant medical records maintained by IDOC (in cases where
Page 2 of 6
Plaintiff’s medical condition or care is at issue, and provided Plaintiff has
executed the required release form as directed in paragraph I(B)(3) (note:
Defendants may require payment of IDOC’s customary copying costs for
extensive records); and
10.
The identity of the John Doe defendants or, if Defendants are unable to
make a specific identification, any document or information which would
assist in the identification of the John Does; Defendants are not required to
produce photographs of IDOC employees or inmates.
11.
Defendants reserve the right to object to the production of the above, in a
specific case, for security or other concerns.
D.
Any party entering an appearance after the date of this Order shall make the
required disclosures within 30 days from his appearance in this case. Plaintiff will
make his required disclosures within 30 days from the new party’s appearance.
E.
Plaintiff shall have until April 8, 2016 to: (a) move to amend his complaint to add
or substitute specific defendants for the John Does; (b) to identify additional steps
that can be taken to identify the John Does who remain unidentified; and (c) move
to amend the complaint to include any additional claims or parties. Plaintiff is
reminded that he must include the entire proposed amended pleading when filing
a motion to amend. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the
dismissal of the John Does, and will likely bar further amendment of the complaint,
except for good cause shown.
II.
Discovery
Page 3 of 6
A.
Each party is limited to serving 15 interrogatories, 15 requests for production of
documents, and 10 requests for admission. On motion, these limits may be
increased for good cause shown.
B.
Any interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for
admissions shall be served so as to allow the answering party the full thirty-day
period provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in which to respond.
C.
Defendant is given leave to depose Plaintiff who has been released from prison.
D.
All discovery must be completed by November 4, 2016. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(e), the parties are under an ongoing obligation to supplement the disclosures and
production in this case. Failure to timely disclose or supplement discovery in this
case may result in sanctions, including being prohibited from using the undisclosed
information or witness.
III.
Dispositive motions
A.
Any dispositive motion raising the affirmative defense of qualified immunity or
failure to exhaust administrative remedies shall be filed by February 19, 2016.
Upon the filing of a dispositive motion raising the affirmative defense of failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, the following procedures shall apply:
1.
Along with the motion, Defendant shall serve upon Plaintiff copies of all
documents relevant to the issue of exhaustion.
2.
In responding to the motion, Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendant copies of
all documents in his possession relevant to the issue of exhaustion.
3.
The parties should not conduct discovery on the merits until the question of
Page 4 of 6
whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies within the
meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act has been resolved. Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008).
4.
A hearing on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies will be set,
if necessary, by separate Order.
B.
IV.
All other dispositive motions shall be filed by December 2, 2016.
Trial Schedule
A.
Extensions of these deadlines will only be granted in the rarest of circumstances, as
the usual difficulties and delays associated with prisoner litigation have been taken
into account in setting the pretrial schedule.
B.
A telephonic status conference is SET for February 10, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. before
United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.
following conference call number: 1-888-684-8852.
Parties shall use the
When prompted, enter
access code 7912189, then enter password 9382.
C.
A telephonic pretrial conference is SET for March 6, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. before
United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson.
following conference call number: 1-888-684-8852.
Parties shall use the
When prompted, enter
access code 7912189, then, when prompted, enter password 9382.
D.
A final pretrial conference is SET on April 19, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. before United
States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel.
Parties should consult Judge
Rosenstengel’s case management procedures, located on the Court’s webpage, for
instructions.
Page 5 of 6
E.
Trial is hereby set before District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on May 9, 2017 at
9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 20, 2016
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?