Donelson v. Shearing et al

Filing 233

ORDER denying 192 Motion to Alter Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 207 Motion to Compel; denying 209 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel; denying 210 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 219 Motion for Extension of Time to File Respo nse/Reply; denying 221 Motion for Order; granting 222 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 230 Motion to Strike. Defendant Lang shall respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests by May 30, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 5/9/17. (dam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES DONELSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DR. SHEARING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15 CV 95 SMY/RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the pending motions filed by Plaintiff Charles
Donelson. (Docs. 192, 207, 209, 210, 219, 221, 222, 230.) On November 25, 2014, Plaintiff
commenced an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging several constitutional violations.
(Docs. 1, 18.) On January 29, 2015, the Court severed Plaintiff’s claims into separate actions.
The instant action pertains to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment rights by denying medical treatment for his tonsils at Menard Correctional Center.
(Doc. 18.)
Motion to Compel Discovery
Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants to respond to his discovery requests and for
discovery sanctions. (Doc. 207.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant Lang failed to respond, and
Defendant Lang counters that Plaintiff did not serve her with discovery requests. On November
23, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a motion to extend the discovery deadline by
December 22, 2016, and to attach copies of any new discovery requests as exhibits. (Doc. 190.)
Plaintiff submitted a motion for an extension of time for discovery, with proposed discovery

requests as attachments, and the Court granted the extension. (Docs. 202, 206.) Although the
Court sent Defendant Lang copies of the discovery requests, Plaintiff did not independently serve
any defendant with the discovery requests. As a result, the status of the discovery requests was
ambiguous; the discovery requests could have been reasonably construed as exhibits in support
of Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time rather than live discovery requests. The Court
finds that sanctions are unwarranted, but, for the sake of judicial economy, Defendant Lang
should respond to the discovery requests by May 30, 2017. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is
granted with respect to Defendant Lang.
Plaintiff also argues that Defendants Shearing and Nwaobosi’s responses are evasive.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need
not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. “Rule 26 vests this Court with broad
discretion in determining the scope of discovery, which the Court exercises mindful that the
standard for discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) is widely recognized as one that is necessarily broad
in its scope in order to allow the parties essentially equal access to the operative facts.” Scott v.
Edinburg, 101 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1021 (N.D. Ill. 2000). The Seventh Circuit has recognized a
trial court’s “broad discretion over discovery matters.” Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 944 (7th
Cir. 2004). “The burden in a motion to compel rests with the party seeking discovery to explain
why the opposing party’s responses are inadequate.” MSTG, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 2011
WL 221771, at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2011).
In the interrogatories at issue, Plaintiff requests information related to his medical
complaints, diagnoses and treatment. (Doc. 207 at 9-13.) For nearly every response, Defendants

2

Shearing and Nwaobosi refer Plaintiff to previously produced medical records and policies. (Id.)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state:
(d) If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records (including
electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining
the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party
may answer by:
(1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to
enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the
responding party could; and
(2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and
audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or
summaries.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).

Considering the forgoing rule, Defendants Shearing and Nwaobosi

responses appear to satisfy the Federal Rules, and Plaintiff offers no argument to the contrary.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied with respect to Defendants Shearing and
Nwaobosi.
Recruitment of Counsel
Plaintiff moves for recruitment of counsel and for the Court to reconsider its prior
decision regarding recruitment of counsel. (Docs. 192. 209.) On November 23, 2016, the Court
stated, “Plaintiff appears adequately capable of handling this case through the resolution of
dispositive motions, including motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff
may refile thereafter if his claim proceeds to trial.” (Doc. 190.) Plaintiff references District
Judge J. Phil Gilbert’s finding that “the circumstances presented in this case warrant recruitment
of counsel,” which he characterizes as the law of the case. (Doc. 145.) Even assuming the law
of the case doctrine applies, courts may reconsider interlocutory rulings “at any time before final
judgment,” and “the law of the case doctrine must yield to rational decisionmaking.” Peterson v.
Lindner, 765 F.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 1985).
3

Here, there is no indication that Judge Gilbert considered Plaintiff’s extensive experience
as a litigator or Plaintiff’s penchant for publicly expressing “firm and definite ideas as to how he
wishes to proceed” even when he has the benefit of advice from recruited counsel. See Donelson
v. Kirk, 1:14-cv-01249, Doc. 258 (N.D. Ill. 2017). Plaintiff is an experienced litigator who has
pursued at least 17 actions in federal court, and Plaintiff’s claim is not complex; Plaintiff alleges
Defendants Shearing and Nwaobosi provided no treatment for his tonsils. Moreover, since Judge
Gilbert’s ruling, Plaintiff’s former recruited counsel has provided Plaintiff with substantial
assistance with conducting discovery, and the discovery stage has drawn to a close.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for recruited counsel are denied.

Plaintiff may refile for

recruited counsel if the case survives the summary judgment stage.
Other Pending Motions
On April 17, 2017, Defendant Lang moved for an extension of time to April 18 to file a
motion for summary judgment for the purpose of finalizing affidavits to support her motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 222.) Although the dispositive motion deadline is April 14, 2017, the
motion incorrectly indicated that the deadline was on April 17, 2017. (Docs. 206, 222.) On
April 18, 2017, Defendant Lang filed her motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 226.) On April
19, 2017, Plaintiff moved to strike Defendant Lang’s motion for an extension of time, arguing
that Defendant Lang intentionally misrepresented the Court’s deadline and failed to comply with
the Court’s order regarding the deadline. (Doc. 230.) Although Defendant Lang misstates the
deadline by three days, the Court finds no reason to believe that the misstatement was
intentional. Moreover, the Court finds Defendant Lang’s request for a minor extension to be
reasonable and supported by good cause. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant Lang’s
Motion for an Extension and denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.

4

Plaintiff requests a stay of proceedings until resolution of the pending motions. (Doc.
210.) Because this Order resolves all pending motions, with the exception of the motions for
summary judgment, Plaintiff’s request is denied. Plaintiff also requests an order directed at the
Department of Corrections for additional time with his legal property and in the law library for
the purpose of responding to motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 221.) This request is
denied, but, if necessary, Plaintiff may move for additional time to submit a response.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 207) is GRANTED in part.
Defendant Lang shall respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests by May 30, 2017. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel is DENIED in all other respects.
Defendant Lang’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 222) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 230), Motion for Recruitment
of Counsel (Doc. 209), Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 192), Motion to Stay (Doc. 210), and Motion
for an Order (Doc. 221) are DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 219) is
DENIED as MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2017

s/
Reona J. Daly
l
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5