Stubbs v. Cunningham et al

Filing 139

ORDER DENYING 133 MOTION for Reconsideration re 91 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Kent Stubbs; and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 134 MOTION for Order to filed by Kent Stubbs. The IDOC Defendants shall provide their responses to Plaintiff's written discovery requests by September 4, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 9/2/2020. (nmf)

Case 3:18-cv-00408-RJD Document 139 Filed 09/02/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #2024

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KENT STUBBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HCUA CUNNINGHAM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-408-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Appointment of
Counsel (Doc. 133) and Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery (Doc. 134). For the reasons
set forth below, the motion for reconsideration of counsel is DENIED, and the motion to compel is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 133)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider its previous decisions denying him
counsel due to his change in circumstance. More specifically, Plaintiff explains he has been
released from prison and placed in a halfway house for 90 days. Plaintiff asserts he is not allowed
to engage in any outside movement because he is on house arrest and, as such, he does not have
access to legal material. Plaintiff also explains he is no longer receiving any help from the prison
law clerk, and he has only limited knowledge of the law.
Plaintiff’s request for counsel has been denied by the Court numerous times as he has
demonstrated his knowledge of the law and the legal process, and is able to articulate clearly and
effectively. Although the Court recognizes Plaintiff’s concerns due to his change in circumstance
Page 1 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00408-RJD Document 139 Filed 09/02/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #2025

and his release from prison, the Court notes that Plaintiff has already filed his response to the
pending motions for summary judgment and no further filings on his part are expected or required
until a ruling on the motions is entered. If this case survives summary judgment, the Court will
reconsider its decisions with regard to recruitment of counsel. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 133) is DENIED.
Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery (Doc. 134)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Defendant Ahmed to produce
documents and provide any and all discovery requested. Plaintiff complains he served discovery
on Defendant Ahmed on July 26, 2019, but did not received responses until January 16, 2020,
when Defendant Ahmed filed his motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also complains that
Defendant Ahmed did not provide any documents and objected to interrogatory requests 1, 4, 5, 8,
9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21(c), 21(d), 22, and 23. Plaintiff asserts that because Defendant Ahmed
did not timely respond to his interrogatories, his objections should be waived. Attached to his
motion, Plaintiff included his letters to counsel as well as his interrogatories directed to Defendant
Ahmed and Ahmed’s responses thereto.
Defendant Ahmed asserts he mailed his answers and objections to Plaintiff’s
interrogatories on October 15, 2019. Pursuant to an order of this Court, the discovery deadline
was extended until November 19, 2019. Defendant remarks that Plaintiff’s letter to counsel
regarding discovery was sent on April 24, 2020, more than five months after the close of
discovery. Plaintiff also sent another letter to Ahmed’s counsel on June 1, 2020. Defendant
argues the delay in providing his discovery responses was not willful and, because the responses
were served before Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff was not prejudiced.
Defendants Bowker, Cunningham, Jeffreys, Johnson, and Lamb (“IDOC Defendants”)
Page 2 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00408-RJD Document 139 Filed 09/02/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #2026

also responded to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Defendants explain that although Plaintiff’s
motion does not directly mention them, Plaintiff included a letter he sent to counsel for the IDOC
Defendants dated June 1, 2020, in which Plaintiff complains that Defendants failed to respond to
written discovery served on July 26, 2019. Counsel for the IDOC Defendants reviewed this case
file and determined Plaintiff had served interrogatories and requests to produce in July 2019, and
through inadvertent error, counsel failed to provide the IDOC Defendants’ responses. Counsel
represents she has been working to complete and serve the responses, but will need until
September 4, 2020 to do so.
First, the Court considers Plaintiff’s motion as it relates to Defendant Dr. Ahmed.
Although Dr. Ahmed’s responses were delayed, he represents they were provided in October
2019. The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s position that he did not receive them until January 2020,
when Dr. Ahmed filed his motion for summary judgment.
As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the proper scope of discovery. The scope of
discovery is set forth in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The current
language of the Rule provides:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence
to be discoverable.
The Supreme Court has cautioned that the requirement under Rule 26(b)(1) that the
material sought in discovery be “relevant” should be firmly applied, and the district courts should
not neglect their power to restrict discovery where necessary. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153,
Page 3 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00408-RJD Document 139 Filed 09/02/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #2027

177 (1979); see also Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309,
320 (7th Cir. 2003). Further, the Court has broad discretion when reviewing a discovery dispute
and “should independently determine the proper course of discovery based upon the arguments of
the parties.” Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996). Indeed, courts must,
on motion or on its own, limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if said
discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
In consideration of Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant Dr. Ahmed’s objections should be
deemed waived due to the untimeliness of their responses, the Court looks to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33, which provides that “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless
the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” The Court acknowledges Defendant Ahmed has
not set forth, with any particularity, an excuse for his delay in responding to Plaintiff’s requests.
However, the Court is still obligated to limit discovery that is beyond the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).
In this instance, several of Plaintiff’s requests to which Defendants objected are clearly beyond the
allowable scope of Rule 26(b)(1). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s requests and Defendant’s
responses thereto, and finds that Defendant Dr. Ahmed responded in good faith and set forth
objections as appropriate.

Because the Court finds Defendant Dr. Ahmed’s interrogatory

responses were adequate and his objections were appropriate, and noting that Plaintiff was not
prejudiced by the delay in serving said responses, Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Dr. Ahmed is
DENIED.
With regard to the IDOC Defendants, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The IDOC
Defendants shall provide their responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests by September 4,
2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 4 of 5

Case 3:18-cv-00408-RJD Document 139 Filed 09/02/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #2028

DATED: September 2, 2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 5 of 5