Curry v. Butler et al
Filing
191
ORDER denying 153 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 154 Motion to Compel; granting 157 Motion for Status; denying 159 Motion ; denying 160 Motion ; denying 162 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 163 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 165 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 167 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 168 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 169 Motion for Order; denying 171 Motion ; denyi ng 173 Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 178 Motion ; denying 179 Motion to Copy. See attached. Within the next 21 days, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff all policies, procedures and administrative directives involving the & quot;black striper" (weapons violator / staff assaulter) program and "keep separate from" programs. If the Defendants would like to withhold responsive documents on the basis that disclosure would compromise institutional security, Def endants shall specify which documents are being withheld, and describe the documents in general terms. Defendants shall then file a notice of compliance with the Court stating which documents are being withheld. Within the next 21 days, Defendants are also ordered to respond to Plaintiff's motion at Doc. 178. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 9/22/17. (kos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN CURRY, R09761,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY S. BUTLER,
WILLIAM A. SPILLER,
KENT E. BROOKMAN,
TODD BROOKS,
SHAUN GEE,
BRANDON ANTHONY and
CORY BUMP,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:16-cv-00820-SMY-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court are multiple motions filed by Plaintiff Steven Curry. First,
Curry filed a motion asking the Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to Leah Bartelt requesting
various documents associated with Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). (Doc. 153). Curry
indicated in a previous motion that Leah Bartelt is an Assistant Illinois Attorney General
working in Chicago. Rule 45(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “A subpoena
may command … production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things
at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts
business in person[.]” Here, Curry seeks production of the documents at Menard and Bartelt is
located in Chicago. Menard and Chicago are over 100 miles apart. The subpoena therefore
violates Rule 45 and Curry’s motion (Doc. 153) shall be denied.
Next, Curry filed a motion compel. (Doc. 154). Curry’s motion to compel is granted in
part and denied in part. In the motion, Curry asks the Court to order the Defendants to:
1
turn over documents by Defendant Bump and Gee when it comes to the interview that
had with plaintiff [sic] which Bump was on February 14, 2016, Gee was on March 7,
2016 right on the gallery with other inmates around, IDOC keep separate from [sic],
signatures of what prison official or department he went to obtain video footage, black
striper institutional directives #05.03.104 policy, defendants Brooks and Butler answer
my interrogatory questions, and the name of the prison official or department that has
“storage and masterfiles” of plaintiff discovery request [sic].
(Doc. 154, p. 8). Defendants filed a response (Doc. 166), stating that they have supplemented
their written discovery responses to include Curry’s investigative interview with Bump, and that
they shall provide any additional reports pertaining to Gee, if they exist. Additionally,
Defendants state that no administrative or institutional directives exist pertaining to “keep
separate from” procedures. Defendants also state that they have since provided interrogatory
responses from Brooks and Butler. Finally, Defendants note that they are under no obligation to
create new documents in response to a request for production. Curry then filed a reply (Doc.
184) to Defendants’ Response. In his reply, Curry states that Defendants should be ordered to
produce any IDOC policies and procedures involving the black striper program.
Upon review of the parties’ filings, Defendants have properly responded to the majority
of Curry’s discovery requests. However, there are still some uncertainties as to the production of
documents relating to the black striper program. Within the next 21 days, Defendants shall
produce to Plaintiff all policies, procedures and administrative directives involving the “black
striper” (weapons violator / staff assaulter) program and “keep separate from” programs. If the
Defendants would like to withhold responsive documents on the basis that disclosure would
compromise institutional security, Defendants shall specify which documents are being withheld,
2
and describe the documents in general terms. Defendants shall then file a notice of compliance
with the Court stating which documents are being withheld.
Curry’s next motion (Doc. 157) is titled “Plaintiff[’s] request on the ‘Status’ of my
‘objections’ regarding motions (Doc. 137) (Doc. 127) (Doc. 128).” This motion is granted to
the extent that any motions not yet ruled on will be addressed in due course. In the future, if
Curry would like to appeal a decision of the magistrate judge to the district court judge, he
should be sure to title the motion “Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision” and specify which
order or orders he would like to appeal.
At Doc. 159, Curry filed a motion titled “Plaintiff request[s] this court send me [sic] the
interrogatories that I requested to add on Defendants (Doc. 143).” Curry’s motion is denied.
Plaintiff was previously notified that the Court does not provide free copies of documents, and
that documents submitted to the Court may be purchased for $0.50 per page. If Curry would like
to purchase copies of documents, he may contact the Court Clerk’s office.
Next, Curry filed motions titled “Plaintiff request to dispose [sic] of non-part[y] member
Matt Hartman with written deposition under rule 31” (Doc. 160) and “Plaintiff request that nonpart[y] member Matt Hartman be subpoenaed under Rule 45” (Doc. 162). Both motions are
denied. Curry asks the Court to allow him to take the written deposition of Matt Hartman and to
issue him a subpoena duces tecum for IDOC documents related to the black striper program.
Matt Hartman appears to be an Assistant Attorney General in the Illinois Attorney General’s
Office Public Access Bureau in Springfield. Springfield, Illinois, is approximately 150 miles
from Chester, Illinois, where Menard is located. Again, issuing such a subpoena would violate
Rule 45. Curry’s motion is therefore denied. Furthermore, issuing a subpoena to Hartman
3
appears to be unnecessary because the documents requested should be available from the IDOC
Defendants.
At Doc. 163, Curry filed another motion to compel. The motion seeks the production of
documents pertaining to IDOC black striper and “keep separate from” policies. The Court will
address this motion to compel in the same manner as Curry’s previous motion to compel (Doc.
154). The motion is granted in part and denied in part. Within the next 21 days, Defendants
shall produce all policies, procedures and administrative directives involving the “black striper”
(weapons violator / staff assaulter) program and “keep separate from” programs. If the
Defendants would like to withhold responsive documents on the basis that disclosure would
compromise institutional security, Defendants shall specify which documents are being withheld,
and describe the documents in general terms. If documents are withheld on the basis of
institutional security, Defendants shall identify those documents in its notice of compliance.
Curry then filed a motion titled “Plaintiff response regarding moving forward with
deposing non-part[y] members.” (Doc. 165). Curry states that he would like to depose Courtney
Meyers (Mental Health Caseworker at Menard), Anthony Williams (Mental Health Caseworker
at Menard) and Matt Hartman (aforementioned Assistant Illinois Attorney General). Defendants
filed a response to Curry’s motion (Doc. 175), stating that arrangements could be made to depose
Meyers and Williams, but Defendants are unwilling to split the costs with Curry. Curry’s motion
is granted in part and denied in part. Curry shall be permitted to depose Courtney Meyers and
Anthony Williams. However, Defendants are not required to split the costs of the depositions
with Curry.
Curry should be aware depositions are not cheap. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1821,
deponents are entitled to $40 per day in witness fees. A court reporter will also need to be
4
present and court reporters charge an attendance fee. After the deposition, the court reporter will
charge a fee to purchase a copy of the deposition transcript. Curry should expect to pay several
hundred dollars per deposition. The parties are directed to confer and work out arrangements so
that Curry can depose the two witnesses (Meyers and Williams). The Court will not compel the
deposition of Matt Hartman. As previously noted, Hartman is employed in the Springfield area.
As such, the Court will not compel his attendance at a deposition at Menard.
At Doc. 167, Curry filed a motion titled “Plaintiff request that the following discovery
request that was denied because of safety and security reasons (Doc. 137) be reviewed under a
protective order rule 26.” On June 6, 2017, the undersigned issued a Court order (Doc. 137)
ruling on Curry’s “Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery” (Doc. 118). Several
of the discovery requests were denied on the basis that the production of responsive documents
may implicate institutional security concerns. However, it is unclear whether the Defendants did
in fact withhold responsive documents on the basis that the production of those documents would
threaten institutional security. Plaintiff’s motion is granted to the extent that Defendants shall
specify whether any institutional policies, procedures or administrative directives are being
withheld on the basis of security concerns. Defendants shall then state in general terms what
information is included in the document. The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion is denied and the
Court will not conduct an in camera review of IDOC documents at this time.
Next, Curry filed a motion titled “Plaintiff is filing a notice on the importance of having
Matt Hartman subpoenaed and depose of [sic] as a non-part[y] under rule 45 and 31.” (Doc.
168). As previously noted, Hartman is located in Springfield and Curry is located at Menard. A
subpoena issued to Hartman requiring attendance or the production of documents at Menard
would be improper. The motion (Doc. 168) is denied.
5
At Doc. 169 filed “Plaintiff[’s] motion requesting an order stating how the deposition will
be taken.” (Doc. 169). Curry asks the Court to issue an order directing that the deposition costs
be split among the parties and for the Court to instruct the parties as to the manner in which the
depositions will take place. In a subsequent filing (Doc. 175), Defendants state that they are
unwilling to split the deposition costs but that they could make Williams and Meyers available to
be deposed. Curry’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. The parties are ordered to
confer and agree on the logistics of deposing Williams and Meyers. A court reporter shall be
present at the depositions so that a transcript can be produced. If Curry would like to go forward
with the depositions, the Defendants are not obligated to split the costs. If Curry lacks the funds
in his prison trust fund account to pay for a court reporter, the Defendants need not schedule the
depositions.
Moving forward, at Doc. 171 Curry filed the motion “Plaintiff[’s] motion concerning
Defendants[’] difficulty regarding this discovery phase.” In this motion, Curry argues the merits
of his case and then reiterates his previously stated discovery disputes. It is not quite clear what
Curry is requesting in the motion. Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a motion filed with the court must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and
… state the relief sought.” Curry’s motion is denied. If he would like to file a motion to compel
in the future, he should comply with Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Next, at Doc. 173 Curry filed “Plaintiff[’s] motion requesting Defendant Bump[’s]
interrogatories under rule 33 be used against him and allowed as evidence under rule 26
discovery.” Rule 33(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “[a]n answer to an
interrogatory may be used to the extent allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Generally,
an interrogatory response provided by an adverse party is admissible against that party.
6
Furthermore, interrogatory responses may be used for impeachment purposes when a party
provides inconsistent testimony at trial. Here, however, the parties are currently in the discovery
process, and it would be premature to make an evidentiary ruling addressing the use at trial of
Defendant Bump’s interrogatories. Curry’s motion is denied.
At Doc. 178, Curry filed a motion titled “Plaintiff[’s] motion to request that legal mail be
sent through regular mail.” Curry states that Menard participates in the e-filing system. Because
Curry does not have a computer in his prison cell, Curry must rely on the Menard law library
employees to print out and deliver Court filings. Instead of receiving documents through efiling, Curry requests the Court to send him filings through regular mail. Curry states in his
motion that he has experienced lengthy delays in receiving court filings due to the fact that
Menard is often on lockdown. Furthermore, Curry states that he is being harassed by other
inmates and being labeled a “snitch” because inmate law clerks have shared his legal filings with
fellow prisoners.
Curry’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Curry shall continue to receive
Court filings through the e-filing system. However, the Defendants are ordered to file a response
to Curry’s motion. In their response, Defendants shall verify whether Curry is receiving his
Court filings on a weekly basis. If not, Defendants shall explain why he is not receiving his
filings. Additionally, Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s assertion that inmate law clerks are
sharing his legal filings with other prisoners. Although this case is not proceeding under seal and
court filings are public records, see, e.g., Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1073 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“It is beyond dispute that most documents filed in court are presumptively open to the public”),
inmates should be able to pursue non-frivolous litigation protesting their conditions of
7
confinement without needless harassment. Defendants shall file their response to Curry’s motion
within the next 21 days.
Next, Curry filed “Plaintiff[’s] motion requesting that the clerk send me copys [sic] of
Doc. 142 and Doc. 143.” (Doc. 179). The motion is denied. If Curry would like to purchase
copies of documents, he may contact the Court Clerk’s office.
Finally, the Court must note that many of Plaintiff’s filings are very difficult to read and
almost illegible. Moving forward in this case, Curry is informed that he needs to improve his
penmanship. Curry is hereby warned that future filings may be stricken if he continues to write
in such a manner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 22, 2017.
s/Reona J. Daly
REONA J. DALY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
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?