Stewart v. Lakin et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING 38 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to File Dispositive Motions and Memorandum of Law in Support filed by Mike Tassone, John Lakin, Gary Bost, GRANTING 31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by John Stewart. ( Discovery due by 5/1/2017, Dispositive Motions due by 5/15/2017.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 2/8/17. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
JOHN LAKIN, GARY BOST, and MIKE)
)
TASSONE,
)
)
Defendants.
JOHN STEWART,

Case No. 3:15-cv-974-JPG-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Extension of Time filed by Plaintiff on
November 15, 2016 (Doc. 31) and the Motion for Extension of Time filed by Defendants on
January 6, 2017. Both Motions are GRANTED.
Defendants served interrogatories and requests to produce on Plaintiff on March 15, 2016.
Plaintiff responded to the interrogatories but did not respond to the requests to produce.
Defendants sought to compel answers to the requests to produce on June 23, 2016 (Doc. 25), to
which Plaintiff did not respond, and that request was granted in part on October 24, 2016 (Doc.
29). Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the requests to produce by November 10, 2016 and was
warned of the consequences of failing to do so.
On November 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking 30 more days to respond to the
requests to produce and the motion to compel (Doc. 31). Plaintiff states that because of a prison
transfer, he was not aware of the November 10 deadline until November 4. He also states that he
has limited access to the law library at Shawnee CC, here he was housed at the time and where he
is currently housed. Plaintiff then filed a response to the motion to compel (Doc. 25) on
November 17, 2016 (Doc. 32), essentially stating that he does not have possession of the
Page 1 of 2

documents requested and providing a medical records authorization form. Defendants, while
acknowledging the filing of Document 32, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and/or
failure to comply with the Court’s Orders (Doc. 35). Defendants also seek an extension of the
deadlines in this matter in light of the discovery disputes.
The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 31) and response (Doc. 32) and finds
that Plaintiff has substantially complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, in light of his pro
se and incarcerated status. Attached to the response is the only document that Plaintiff has in his
possession, namely the incident field report. This document responds to Defendants’ request to
produce # 1. As to the other requests, the Court finds that Plaintiff necessarily answers that he
does not have possession of any such documents. However, because “it is well established that
pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural rules,” Plaintiff shall be required
to formerly respond to Defendants’ request to produce. Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d
751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). To that end, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff a
copy of Document 25-1, pages 1-6 and 12. Plaintiff shall respond to the requests to produce, it is
sufficient to indicate that such documents are not in his possession, and shall mail his responses to
Defense counsel and shall submit them to the Court by February 28, 2017. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to produce documents is GRANTED.
Defendants’ motion also is GRANTED. The discovery deadline is extended to May 1,
2017 and the dispositive motion filing deadline is extended to May 15, 2017.
DATED: February 8, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2