Rogers v. Baldwin et al

Filing 159

ORDER denying 150 Motion to Re-Open Discovery. Defendants are directed to send the January 15, 2021 and March 1, 2021 discovery responses to Plaintiff's current counsel. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 1/27/2022. (anp)

Case 3:18-cv-00022-DWD Document 159 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #1671
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TERRY ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-22-DWD

JOHN BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Terry Rogers’s Motion to Reopen
Discovery (Doc. 150). Defendants filed responses to the motion (Docs. 151 and 153).
Rogers filed replies (Docs. 152 and 154, respectively).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 5, 2018, Rogers filed his Complaint alleging deliberate indifference to
his medical needs and in refusing to transfer him out of Menard after being made aware
of a serious risk of harm posed to him (Doc. 155, pp. 1-2). Prior to any discovery deadlines
being entered in this case, the Court first assigned counsel to Rogers (Doc. 27). A
discovery deadline was initially set for May 1, 2019 (Doc. 46). Merits discovery was
subsequently stayed while the issue of exhaustion was resolved (Doc. 47). On January 24,
2019, the exhaustion issue was resolved and merits discovery was allowed to proceed
(Doc. 89). Rogers’s went through additional changes in counsel (Docs. 52, 53, 99, 100).
On October 10, 2019, Attorney Rebecca Van Court was assigned to represent
Rogers (Doc. 100). Because merits discovery had already closed, Rogers’s newly assigned
Page 1 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00022-DWD Document 159 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #1672
attorney asked to reopen discovery (Doc. 111). Counsel noted that although prior counsel
had served written discovery on some of the Defendants, they failed to respond to the
interrogatories or requests for production. Further, not all of the Defendants were served
with discovery and some of the Defendants failed to submit their required initial
disclosures (Doc. 111, p. 3). Counsel asked to re-open discovery in order to allow Rogers
“to obtain written discovery responses, subpoena responses, party depositions and/or
witness depositions” in preparation for trial (Id. at p. 4). Defendants did not object to the
motion. The Court granted Rogers’s motion to re-open discovery and the discovery
deadline was reset for July 9, 2020 (Doc. 113). Due to the Court’s Administrative Orders
related to delays caused by Covid-19, that deadline was extended and later reset for
March 1, 2021 (Doc. 131). The dispositive motion deadline was reset to April 1, 2021.
On April 1, 2021, both the Illinois Department of Corrections defendants and the
medical defendants filed motions for summary judgment (Docs. 134 and 136). Assigned
counsel filed responsive briefs (Docs. 139-142). At no time did counsel indicate that more
discovery was necessary to respond to the summary judgment motions. After the
motions were fully brief, assigned counsel asked to withdraw because she was leaving
active practice in Illinois (Doc. 143). On June 8, 2021, Rogers’s current counsel was
assigned to the case (Doc. 144).
On August 30, 2021, current counsel filed the pending motion to reopen discovery
(Doc. 150). Counsel indicates that prior counsel did not complete any depositions of the
defendants. Counsel also believes that additional written discovery is necessary to
prepare for trial. In a reply brief, he indicates that he never received certain supplemental
discovery responses that were sent to Rogers’s previous counsel in January and March
Page 2 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00022-DWD Document 159 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #1673
2021 (Doc. 152). Defendants opposed the motion, noting that discovery had long since
closed and the dispositive motions had already been briefed (Docs. 151 and 153). On
September 24, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the pending motions for
summary judgment, leaving the following counts:
Count 6:

Donaby, Knop, and Moldenhauer were deliberately
indifferent as to Rogers’s denial of asthma medication in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 7:

Lashbrook and Baldwin were deliberately indifferent to the
serious risk of harm posed by the other defendants’ campaign
of harassment when they refused to transfer Rogers out of
Menard after being made aware of his complaints through the
grievance process in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
ANALYSIS

The decision to re-open discovery is in the sound discretion of the court. Winters
v. Fru-Con Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 743 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442
F.3d 600, 603 n. 2 (7th Cir. 2006)). Here, Rogers was already allowed to reopen discovery
once, on January 9, 2020, when attorney Van Court was assigned to the case (Doc. 113).
The deadline was later extended to March 1, 2021, to account for any delays caused by
the Covid-19 pandemic (Doc. 131). On April 1, 2021, Defendants filed their motions for
summary judgment (Docs. 134 and 136). The motions were fully briefed by Rogers’s
counsel. At no time did Rogers’s assigned counsel ask for additional time to conduct
written discovery or take additional depositions. Further, Rogers was given an additional
thirteen months to conduct discovery. He does not indicate that his assigned counsel at
the time was ineffective or failed to conduct any discovery in the case. Counsel responded
to the dispositive motions and some of Rogers’s claims survived summary judgment.
Although new counsel was assigned because previous counsel could no longer represent
Page 3 of 4

Case 3:18-cv-00022-DWD Document 159 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #1674
Rogers, there is no justification for the additional discovery counsel seeks at this late stage
Rogers is not entitled to a “do over” now that the dispositive motions have been fully
briefed and ruled on. Winters, 498 F.3d at 743.
Accordingly, Rogers’s motion to re-open discovery is DENIED. To the extent that
counsel indicates he was not able to obtain from previous counsel the January 15, 2021
supplemental discovery responses and supplemental discovery production from March
1, 2021, Defendants are DIRECTED to send those responses to Rogers’s current counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 27, 2022
/s David W. Dugan
____________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4