Jellis v. Harrington et al

Filing 159

ORDER DENYING 143 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; DENYING 144 Motion to Compel; DENYING 145 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/30/17. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
RICHARD
HARRINGTON,
JOHN)
TOURVILLE, RYAN DAVIS, LARRY)
HALE,
DONALD
LINDENBERG,)
TIMOTHY VEATH, JASON HART, AIMEE)
)
LANG, and ROBERT SHEARING,
)
)
Defendants.
JERRY JELLIS,

Case No. 3:15-cv-630-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
On January 30, 2017, this Court issued an Order on various discovery motions filed by
Plaintiff (Doc. 131). In that Order, Plaintiff was instructed to file a motion to compel indicating
what documents he still required and a motion for extension of time of the January 30, 2017
discovery deadline. Plaintiff has filed the two motions (Docs. 143 and 144) in addition to a
motion to serve additional discovery (Doc. 145).
The motion to compel is DENIED (Doc. 144). Defendants have provided the information
sought by Plaintiff in their submissions to the Court (Doc. 136). Directing further responses
would be duplicative and wasteful. Plaintiff’s request to serve additional interrogatories upon
Defendants and a subpoena also is DENIED (Doc. 145). The subpoena directed at the IDOC
likewise seeks documents that contain information already provided in Document 136.
Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment to which Plaintiff has responded (Docs.
150, 154, and 156). None of the responses indicate that he is lacking information to respond and
Plaintiff has not filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Page 1 of 2

request to serve additional interrogatories is untimely and unsupported by a required affidavit. In
any event, the additional interrogatories are beyond the numbers outlined in the Scheduling Order.
And, much of Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories are argumentative. For example, “you was the
one that said to take me in the north 2 segregation visiting bull pin area was this because there is no
camera to catch you and Lindenberg assaulting me? [sic]” could only be seeking an admission that
Plaintiff was in fact assaulted. These interrogatories would only draw reasonable objections that
would unnecessarily prolong this litigation. As noted previously, this matter is limited in time
and scope and allowing addition discovery would not be proportional to the needs of this case. In
light of these rulings, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of the discovery deadline is likewise
DENIED (Doc. 143).
DATED: June 30, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2