Cesal v. Kruse et al

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING 40 MOTION for Appointment of an Expert Witness filed by Craig J Cesal; GRANTING 43 MOTION to Seal Document 41 Response to Motion, filed by Craig J Cesal. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal Defendants' Exhibit A attached to Doc. 41. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 6/25/2018. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CRAIG J. CESAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLASS ANTHONY KRUSE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-1064-SMY-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Craig Cesal’s Motion for Appointment of an
Expert Witness (Doc. 40) and Motion to Seal (Doc. 43). For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion to Seal is GRANTED and the Motion for Appointment of an Expert Witness is DENIED.
Plaintiff Craig Cesal, an inmate in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), brings this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Federal Correctional
Institution – Greenville (“FCI Greenville”). More specifically, Plaintiff contends he was denied
adequate treatment for his diabetes and resulting hypoglycemia. He proceeds in this action on the
following claims:
Count One:

Defendants Kruse, Schneider, Mills, Kelly, Jolliff, Johnson, Knebel,
Ulmer, Kelley, and Bowen were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s diabetes in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they
refused to adequately treat his condition; and

Count Two:

Defendant Schneider was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
sciatica when she cancelled his Ibuprofen prescription on
September 23, 2014.

Page 1 of 3

On March 14, 2018, one day before the discovery cut-off, Plaintiff filed a motion for
appointment of an expert witness. Plaintiff asserts that expert testimony is “required for the Court
to fully understand matters related to diabetes treatment, diabetes medication, and diet concerns as
they relate to diabetes.” Plaintiff further suggests that an expert can interpret medical reports and
explain the proper treatment and results of protracted hyperglycemia.
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s motion, asserting it is both untimely and unwarranted in
light of the claims pending in this action. More specifically, Defendants urge the Court to deny
Plaintiff’s motion as it came on the heels of the close of discovery and, moreover, because the
diabetic treatment and management issues are straightforward and can be decided by the Court on
summary judgment without expert input. Indeed, Defendants explain they too have not disclosed
an expert to provide opinions regarding the medical treatment at issue in this lawsuit.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 706(a), a court may appoint an expert to help
sort through conflicting evidence, but it need not appoint an expert for a party’s own benefit or to
explain symptoms that can be understood by a layperson. Turner v. Cox, 569 F. App’x 463, 468
(7th Cir. 2014). Determining deliberate indifference, the issue before the Court here, is generally
not so complicated that an expert is required. See Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-59 (7th
Cir. 1997). Based on the information now before the Court, it does not appear that expert
testimony is warranted as the issues in this case are not particularly complex and do not appear to
necessitate an expert’s explanation. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of an
Expert Witness (Doc. 40) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 43) is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to seal Defendants’ Exhibit A attached to Doc. 41.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 25, 2018
Page 2 of 3

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3