Hill v. Caraway et al
Filing
66
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 55 Motion ; MOOTING 59 Motion to Compel; GRANTING 65 Motion for Leave to File. Clerk of Court DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment forthwith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/3/2017. (sgp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WALTER L. HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM
CARAWAY,
DURBIN, and MAJOR PITT,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:15-cv-1286-NJR-DGW
ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the motion to waive filing fee pursuant to settlement
agreement (Doc. 55), the motion to compel (Doc. 59), and the motion to file motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 65), all filed by Plaintiff.
In his first motion, Plaintiff seeks to waive the remainder of his filing fee pursuant to a
settlement agreement. The Court directed Defendants to respond, which they (finally) did on
September 13, 2017 (Doc. 64). In that response, Defendants indicated that while they did discuss
the possibility of settlement at the end of Plaintiff’s June 29, 2017 deposition, they had not reached
any agreement at that time (Doc. 64). Plaintiff’s motion, to waive the filing fee pursuant to a
settlement, is accordingly DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may refile this motion
if and when he reaches an actual settlement agreement with Defendants.
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff states that he served interrogatories upon Defendants in
March of 2017 but that he received no response. At this deposition, he inquired after the
responses and Defendants indicated that they would send him responses by July 15, 2017.1 No
responses were received, even after Plaintiff sent two letters to defense counsel in July and August
1
The Court does not have a copy of the deposition transcript.
Page 1 of 2
2017. Defendants state that they received interrogatories, which numbered more than 152, around
January 1, 2017. In response, counsel sent Plaintiff a letter dated January 26, 2017 requesting that
Plaintiff state which 15 of the interrogatories that he wanted answered. Defendants received no
response and did not receive the interrogatories served in March, 2017 (Doc. 62). Defendants
further represent that at Plaintiff’s deposition, he stated he would re-serve the discovery requests
but did not. In any event, Defendants state that they responded to Plaintiff’s interrogatories on
September 8, 2017 (although it is not clear whether Defendants responded to the first 15
interrogatories served in January or whether they found a copy of the March interrogatories and
responded to that).
At the outset, each party bears some fault in this matter. Plaintiff should have limited his
interrogatories to 15. Defendants should have followed up on their January 2017 letter and, when
no response was forthcoming, should have responded to the first 15 interrogatories actually served
in timely manner. Plaintiff also should not have waited until June 2017 to inquire after responses
and should have alerted the Court sooner regarding this discovery dispute. Now that Defendants
have responded, this motion is MOOT.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the tardy
responses to his interrogatories. While the dispositive motion filing deadline expired on July 28,
2017, Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file his motion for summary judgment. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to file it forthwith.
DATED: October 3, 2017
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
2
The Scheduling Order in this case limited interrogatories to 15 (Doc. 36).
Page 2 of 2
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?