Jordan v. Welborn et al

Filing 124

ORDER: MOOTING 115 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Steven Jordan, MOOTING 116 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Steven Jordan, GRANTING IN PART 117 MOTION to Continue filed by Steven Jordan, GRANTING IN PART 118 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 110 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Steven Jordan, GRANTING IN PART 123 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [119 ] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Steven Jordan. Status conference set for 2/15/17 is hereby CANCELLED. Discovery due by 3/3/2017. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 110 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 119 MOTION for Summary Judgment : Responses due by 3/31/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 12/27/16. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
WILLIAM WELBORN, JOHN TROST,)
)
STEVEN RITZ, and JANA SOUTH,
)
)
Defendants.
STEVEN JORDAN,

Case No. 3:15-cv-822-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at the Hill Correctional Center, is alleging one count
of deliberate indifferent to his medical needs related to a fall at the Menard Correctional Center in
June 2014. On October 19, 2015, a Scheduling Order was entered setting the discovery deadline
for October 7, 2016 (Doc. 51). Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on exhaustion,
which suspended discovery on the merits until their resolution on July 28, 2016 (Doc. 84). At
Plaintiff’s request, the discovery deadline was extended to November 4, 2016 (Doc. 95).
Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment (Docs. 110 and 119) to which Plaintiff must
respond by December 6, 2016 and January 9, 2017, respectively. Plaintiff seeks extension of
these deadlines and an extension of the discovery deadline (Docs. 115, 116, 117, 118, and 123).
Plaintiff seeks relief in order to secure affidavits to respond to the motions for summary
judgment (Doc. 115); seeks additional time to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests (Doc.
116); seeks a 90 extension of all deadlines in order to secure witness affidavits, serve requests to
admit, serve additional discovery requests, and to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests
(Docs. 117, 118); and he correspondingly seeks an extension of the response deadline to the

Page 1 of 3

summary judgment motions (Docs. 123).

Defendants Trost, Ritz, and South generally object,

noting that Plaintiff has provided no details of why the discovery would be relevant to a response
to their pending motion.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s well-written motions and the response and finds that a
short extension of time will serve the interests of justice. The original discovery deadline, even
with the extension to November 4, 2016, allowed only a little over 3 months to conduct merits
discovery, a period of time that would be difficult for even a seasoned attorney to comply with.
Plaintiff appears to have been diligently pursuing discovery but has been stymied because of his
incarceration and for reasons beyond his control. While motions for summary judgment are
pending, a short delay cannot prejudice Defendants in any significant manner.
Therefore, the discovery deadline is extended to March 3, 2017.

Plaintiff should

complete discovery within that deadline because it is unlikely to be moved in the future. 1
Plaintiff’s responses to the pending motions for summary judgment (Docs. 110 and 119) are due
by March 31, 2017. The status conference set for February 15, 2017 is hereby CANCELLED.
The final pretrial and trial dates may be reset by separate entry.
In light of the foregoing, the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 115) is MOOT, the
Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 116) is MOOT (Plaintiff has responded to the discovery
requests), the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 117) is GRANTED IN PART as provided
1

Part of the reasoning for Plaintiff’s request for more time is to secure the affidavits of three
inmates. The Court notes that this is a deliberate indifference to medical care case: inmate
witnesses are unlikely to provide any relevant testimony regarding Plaintiff’s medical condition
and the treatment thereof. If these witnesses are merely sought in order to bolster Plaintiff’s own
first-hand knowledge, they may be unnecessary. Finally, it is unlikely that jail officials will
volunteer information about the location of other inmates in light of security concerns. If Plaintiff
believes that these witnesses will provide relevant and necessary information in order to support
his claim, and he is unable to acquire their affidavit, he should seek recruitment of counsel. In
doing so, however, Plaintiff should indicate what he believes these witnesses would testify about
in order for the Court to determine whether they are necessary.
Page 2 of 3

above, the Motion for Extension of time (Doc. 118) is GRANTED IN PART, and the Motion for
Extension of Time (Doc. 123) is GRANTED IN PART.
DATED: December 27, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3