Eastman v. Santos et al

Filing 141

ORDER GRANTING 93 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 95 MOTION Complaint to the Court and Motion (Request) for Intervention filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; DENYING 96 MOTION (Request) for Subpoena of Documents filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 101 MOTION to Compel filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; DENYING 102 MOTION filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; DENYING 106 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel fi led by Jeffrey H. Eastman; GRANTING 107 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; DENYING 110 Motion to Toll Proceedings filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 111 MOTION file d by Jeffrey H. Eastman; DENYING 131 MOTION filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; GRANTING 137 MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Dispositive Motion filed by Major Johnson, Walker, Deborah Zelasko, Warden Stock, Major McAbee, Sgt. D ownes, Robert Wegman, Lisa Krebs, Robert Mueller, Illinois Department of Corrections, Ann Lahr, Warden Kink; DENYING 134 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Jeffrey H. Eastman; FINDING AS MOOT 135 MOTION for Joinder to Amend the Sche duling Order filed by Venerio Santos; GRANTING 128 MOTION to Amend/Correct 57 Scheduling Order, filed by Major Johnson, Walker, Deborah Zelasko, Warden Stock, Major McAbee, Sgt. Downes, Robert Wegman, Lisa Krebs, Rob ert Mueller, Illinois Department of Corrections, Warden Kink, Ann Lahr; DENYING 116 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Major Johnson, Walker, Deborah Zelasko, Warden Stock, Major McAbee, Sgt. Downes, Robert Wegman, Lisa K rebs, Robert Mueller, Illinois Department of Corrections, Warden Kink, Ann Lahr. The Scheduling Order is AMENDED as follows: Discovery due by 10/11/2019. Dispositive Motions due by 11/8/2019. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiffs pro posed amended complaint as the First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Dr. Stephen Ritz: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Cle rk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with one subpoena form (AO88B), blank and unsigned. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to sign the subpoena directed to Carle Foundation Hospital and send it back to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 8/29/2019. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEFFREY H. EASTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
VENERIO SANTOS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-602-SMY-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Jeffrey H. Eastman, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights
were violated while he was incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center (“Centralia”). Relevant
to his claims pending in this matter, Plaintiff alleges he suffers from a congenital deformity that
causes his bones and ankles to become misaligned and collapse when bearing weight. This
condition causes Plaintiff pain and difficulty walking. These issues are only alleviated when
Plaintiff wears braces that hold his ankles and feet in alignment. Plaintiff is proceeding in this
action on the following claims (as enumerated in the Court’s screening order at Doc. 7):
Count Three: Santos, Mueller, Kink, Stock, Krebs, Downes, Johnson, McAbee,
Walker, Zelasko, Webman, and Lahr showed deliberate indifference
to Plaintiff’s serious medical need involving a deformity and
arthritis in his feet and pain associated therewith in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
Count Five:

IDOC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate Plaintiff’s needs
related to a deformity and arthritis in his feet.

This matter is before the Court to address the following motions:
Page 1 of 33

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 93)

•

Plaintiff’s Complaint to the Court and Motion (Request) for Intervention (Doc. 95)

•

Plaintiff’s Request for Subpoena of Documents (Doc. 96)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 101)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Assistance in taking Depositions (Doc. 102)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 106)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery and Dispositive Motions (Doc.
107)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll Proceedings to Resolve Issues (Doc. 110)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (Doc. 111)

•

IDOC Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 116)

•

IDOC Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 128)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll Deadline for Dispositive Motions Until All Discovery is
Resolved and Received (Doc. 131)

•

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Complaint (Second) at Close of
Discovery/Resolutions (Doc. 134)

•

Defendant Santos’ Joinder in Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 135)

•

IDOC Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to File a Dispositive Motion (Doc.
137)

The Court has reviewed the aforementioned motions and any responses thereto and sets
forth its rulings as follow.
1. Plaintiff’s Request for Leave of Court to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 93)
In this motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add Dr. Stephen Ritz as a
defendant. In his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Ritz acted with deliberate
Page 2 of 33

indifference to his medical condition in denying him access to a specialist and proper care on April
30, 2018 during a collegial review with Dr. Santos.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading and that
leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires." The Seventh Circuit maintains
a liberal attitude toward the amendment of pleadings "so that cases may be decided on the merits
and not on the basis of technicalities." Stern v. U.S. Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1334 (7th Cir.
1977). The Circuit recognizes that "the complaint merely serves to put the defendant on notice
and is to be freely amended or constructively amended as the case develops, as long as amendments
do not unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant." Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1298 (7th
Cir. 1989). A court may also deny a party leave to amend if there is undue delay, dilatory motive
or futility. Guise v. BMW Mortgage, LLC, 377 F.3d 795, 801 (7th Cir. 2004).
Although filed beyond the Court’s deadline of December 21, 2018 for seeking leave to
amend, there is no apparent undue delay in Plaintiff’s filing. Indeed, Plaintiff asserts that he was
not aware of Dr. Ritz’s involvement with his medical care until Defendant Santos responded to
Plaintiff’s interrogatories on March 15, 2019. Moreover, to be disqualifying, delay “must be
coupled with some other reason” — typically, prejudice to the nonmoving party. Dubicz v.
Commonwealth Edison Co., 377 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court finds no undue
prejudice to Defendants in this circumstance.

Indeed, Defendants have not responded to

Plaintiff’s motion. Because the Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are neither unduly
delayed nor futile or brought with dilatory motive, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall now proceed in this action on the following claims (the enumeration of the
counts as set forth below shall be used by the Court and the parties for the remainder of this
litigation):
Page 3 of 33

Count One:

Santos, Mueller, Kink, Stock, Krebs, Downes, Johnson, McAbee,
Walker, Zelasko, Webman, Lahr, and Dr. Ritz showed deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical need involving a
deformity and arthritis in his feet and pain associated therewith in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count Two:

IDOC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate Plaintiff’s needs
related to a deformity and arthritis in his feet.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint as the
First Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Dr. Stephen Ritz: (1)
Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver
of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the First
Amended Complaint, and this Order to Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff.
If Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk
within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect
formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of formal
service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall serve
upon Defendant (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is entered), a copy of every further
pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with
the original paper to be filed a certificate of service stating the date on which a true and correct
copy of any document was served on Defendant or counsel. Any paper received by a district
judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a certificate
of service will be disregarded by the Court.
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint to the Court and Request for Intervention (Doc. 95)
In this motion, construed by the Court as a motion to compel, Plaintiff complains that
Defendant

Santos

failed

to

properly
respond
Page 4 of 33

to

his

second

set

of

“interrogatories/admissions/productions.” Plaintiff sets forth two general issues with Defendant
Santos’ responses.

First, Plaintiff contends Santos improperly retitled his requests as only

interrogatories so as to avoid responding to any admission requests. Second, Plaintiff contends
Santos avoided answering his questions by merely referring to his medical records, which, Plaintiff
asserts, are not legible. Plaintiff requests a hearing so Defendants “can explain themselves, and
how their objections are necessary.” Plaintiff also requests a “resolution for all objections.”
In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant Santos asserts that Plaintiff failed to meet and
confer regarding his issues, in contravention of this Court’s order (see Doc. 57). Santos also
contends that he did not provide responses to any requests to admit as the requests were not filed
with the Court in accordance with Local Rule 26(b)(1). Santos further asserts that he responded
substantively to each request.

Finally, Santos asserts that in regards to the readability of

Plaintiff’s medical records, it is not clear which item of discovery Plaintiff could not discern.
Santos indicates this issue could be addressed in a meet-and-confer.
Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court has
reviewed

Defendant

Santos’

responses

to

Plaintiff’s

second

set

of

“interrogatories/admissions/productions.” The Court finds Santos’ responses to the requests were
appropriate; however, Santos failed to respond to the portion of the requests that sought
admissions. While the Court acknowledges that Local Rule 26.1(b) provides that requests to
admit shall be filed with the Clerk of Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) dictates that
requests for admissions must not be filed with the Court and the Advisory Committee Notes on
the relevant provision explain that the rule “supersedes and invalidates local rules that forbid,
permit, or requiring filing” of requests for admissions. As such, Defendant Santos is ORDERED

Page 5 of 33

to provide responses to Plaintiff’s requests to admit by September 30, 2019 1 . Plaintiff is
ADVISED that interrogatories, requests to admit, and requests to produce should be served
separately to avoid confusion. The Court will require this moving forward.
Insofar as Plaintiff contends he cannot read certain portions of his medical records, he is
DIRECTED to meet-and-confer with Defendant to address this issue.
3. Plaintiff’s Request for Subpoena of Documents (Doc. 96)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks that the Court subpoena certain documents from Wexford
Health. Plaintiff indicates he does not know how to fill out a subpoena form and he cannot
proceed on certain claims in his complaint without the documents he seeks. Plaintiff’s request is
DENIED. The Court cannot engage in the practice of law to benefit a party. Plaintiff may
subpoena the records he seeks on his own. To assist Plaintiff in this endeavor, the Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with one subpoena form (AO88B), blank and unsigned.
Plaintiff shall complete the form and submit it to the Court for review. Plaintiff shall take
appropriate steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.
Plaintiff is ADVISED to review Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 101)
Plaintiff sets forth numerous issues concerning Defendants’ responses to his discovery
request in this motion. Insofar as Plaintiff reiterates the issues set forth in his motion to compel
at Doc. 95, said issues have been addressed and will not be set forth again. The Court addresses
Plaintiff’s issues concerning the following requests and responses:

1

The Court is mindful that Plaintiff’s requests were compound insofar as he framed each request as a request to admit,
interrogatory, and a request to produce. The Court directs Defendant Santos to construe each request as a request to
admit and, to the best of his ability, provide an appropriate response, to comply with the Court’s Order.

Page 6 of 33

Venerio Santos, M.D.’s Answers to Interrogatories (see Doc. 101-1 at 1-7):
1. Plaintiff complains that Santos’ objection to interrogatory #1 is vague and asserts Santos
failed to state specifically how the request meets the criteria to his objection. Plaintiff also
indicates he does not know what a protective order is or how to file one. The Court has
reviewed Defendant’s response and finds it to be appropriate.

Issues concerning a

protective order will be addressed by the Court in reference to Defendants’ motion for
protective order. The Court also notes that it is appropriate for Defendant to object to a
request while also providing a substantive response subject to his objections. Plaintiff’s
request to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Santos’ response to interrogatory #2 is improper as it was a request
to admit that Santos treated as an interrogatory. Plaintiff further suggests that Defendant’s
objection was vague and he failed to fully answer the request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.

Defendant fully and

adequately responded to the questions posed. Defendant need not respond to this as a
request to admit as it was not served as a request to admit and is included amongst only
interrogatories.
3. Plaintiff complains that Santos’ objection to interrogatory #6 is vague and does not specify
how the request meets the objective criteria. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection.
Defendant has adequately responded and objected to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Santos’ objection to interrogatory #7 is vague and does not specify
how the request meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also complains that Santos refers
Plaintiff to his medical records, which is not what the request sought. Defendant has
Page 7 of 33

adequately responded and objected to this request.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a

supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED. Insofar as Plaintiff cannot read
the dates on which he was prescribed pain medication in his medical records, he is directed
to meet-and-confer with Defendant.
5. Plaintiff complains that Santos’ objection to interrogatory #8 is vague and does not specify
how the request meets the objective criteria. Defendant has adequately responded and
objected to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this
interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Mueller’s, Kink’s, Stock’s, Kreb’s, Johnson’s McAbee’s, Downes’, Walker’s,
Zelasko’s, Wegman’s, and Lahr’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents (see Doc. 101-1 at 8-16):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #1 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also contends that the items requested cannot
be found in the areas Defendants claim. Defendants stand by their objections and also
indicate they are not in possession of any such communications.
adequately responded and objected to this request.

Defendants have

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a

supplemental response to this request to produce is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #2 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand by their objections and also indicate
they are not in possession of any such communications. Defendants have adequately
responded and objected to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request to produce is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #3 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also contends that the items requested cannot
Page 8 of 33

be found in the areas Defendants claim. Defendants stand by their objections and also
indicate they are not in possession of any such communications.
adequately responded and objected to this request.

Defendants have

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a

supplemental response to this request to produce is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #4 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand by their objections and also indicate
they are not in possession of any such communications. Defendants have adequately
responded and objected to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request to produce is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #5 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also asserts that x-ray images are only kept
in the radiology department, not in medical records, and photographs are held at Taylorville
Correctional Center by internal affairs and also cannot be found in the medical records.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this request to produce is
GRANTED IN PART. Defendants shall provide a supplemental response and provide
any photographs and/or copies of x-rays contained in Plaintiff’s IDOC medical records of
Plaintiff’s feet and ankles taken since he has been in the custody of the IDOC (if any) by
September 13, 2019.
6.

Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #6 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. Defendants
have adequately responded and objected to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a
supplemental response to this request to produce is DENIED.

7. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #7 is vague and does not specify
Page 9 of 33

how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. Defendants’
objection was appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this
request to produce is DENIED.
8. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #9 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. Defendants’
objection was appropriate. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this
request to produce is DENIED.
9. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #10 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also complains that the medical records are
not legible.

Defendants stand on their objections.

Defendants’ objection was

appropriate. Defendants are not required to provide Plaintiff’s medical records in a typed
format. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this request to produce is
DENIED.
10. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #11 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria.

Plaintiff also contends the request is specific.

Defendants stand on their objections. Defendants have adequately responded to this
request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this request to produce
is DENIED.
11. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #12 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. Defendants
have adequately responded to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request to produce is DENIED.
12. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #13 is vague and does not specify
Page 10 of 33

how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. Defendants
have adequately responded to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request to produce is DENIED.
13. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #14 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also asserts Defendants should be required to
explain how they are not able to produce the requested documentation. Defendants stand
on their response and objections. Defendants have adequately responded to this request.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this request to produce is
DENIED.
14. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #15 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Plaintiff also asserts Defendants should be required to
explain how they are not able to produce the requested documentation. Defendants stand
on their response and objections. Defendants have adequately responded to this request.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this request to produce is
DENIED.
15. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #16 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections and response.
Defendants have adequately responded to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a
supplemental response to this request to produce is DENIED.
16. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #17 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections and response.
Defendants have adequately responded to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a
supplemental response to this request to produce is DENIED.
Page 11 of 33

17. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #18 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections and response.
Defendants have adequately responded to this request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a
supplemental response to this request to produce is DENIED.
18. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #19 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. The Court
sustains Defendants’ objections. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to
this request to produce is DENIED.
19. Plaintiff complains that Defendants’ objection to request #20 is vague and does not specify
how it meets the objective criteria. Defendants stand on their objections. The Court
sustains Defendants’ objections. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to
this request to produce is DENIED.
Defendant Deborah Zelasko’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Admissions (see Doc. 101-1 at 17-21):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how it meets the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections. The
Court sustains Defendant’s objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #3 are vague and do not
specify how it meets the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response.

The Court finds Defendant’s objections and response to be appropriate.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
Page 12 of 33

specify how it meets the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response.

The Court finds Defendant’s objections and response to be appropriate.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this request to produce is
DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #6,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
5. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #7. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Robert Wegman’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Admissions (see Doc. 101-1 at 22-26):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections. The
Court sustains Defendant’s objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #3 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
Page 13 of 33

compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #6,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
6. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #7. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Susan Walker’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Admissions (Doc. 101 at 27-31):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections. The
Page 14 of 33

Court sustains Defendant’s objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #3 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #6,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
6. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #7. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
Page 15 of 33

a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant David Stock’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Admissions
(Doc. 101 at 32-37):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #7,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
3. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #8. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Ted McAbee’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Admissions
(Doc. 101 at 38-43):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
Page 16 of 33

specify how they meet the objective criteria. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant cannot
refuse to provide a response as to why a wheelchair was not and/or could not be provided
on October 10, 2017. Defendant stands by his response. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a
supplemental response to this interrogatory is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to
supplement his response to this request and, to his knowledge, answer whether Plaintiff
was provided a wheelchair or not on October 10, 2017. Said supplement must be served
by September 13. 2019.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands by his response and
objection.

The Court finds Defendant’s response to be appropriate and DENIES

Plaintiff’s request to supplement the same.
4. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s objection would only be valid if the Defendant were
telling the truth.

Defendant stands on his objections.

Defendant’s objections are

sustained. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #8,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
Page 17 of 33

testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
7. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #9. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Robert Mueller’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Admissions (Doc. 101 at 44-49):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #3 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
Page 18 of 33

motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #7 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Plaintiff also asserts wardens have
oversight responsibility when inmates are sent outside for medical treatment.
Defendant stands on his objections and response. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this request. Defendant is ORDERED to
supplement his response and explain his involvement in allowing the transport of
inmates to outside medical providers. Said supplement must be served by September
13. 2019.
7. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #8,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who
will testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
8. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #9. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Page 19 of 33

Defendant Ann Lahr’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Admissions
(Doc. 101 at 50-54):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #3 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #6,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
Page 20 of 33

testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
6. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #7. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Lisa Kreb’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Admissions
(Doc. 101 at 55-60):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #7 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
Page 21 of 33

compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #8 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #9 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #10,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
8. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #11.

The Court sustains Defendant’s objection.

Plaintiff’s motion to

compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Kevin Kink’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Admissions
(Doc. 101 at 61-65):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
Page 22 of 33

and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #7,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who
will testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
5. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #8. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Stephen Johnson’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Admissions (Doc. 101 at 66-70):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do
Page 23 of 33

not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands by his response.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to supplement his response to this request
and, to his knowledge, answer whether Plaintiff was provided a wheelchair or not on
October 10, 2017. Said supplement must be served by September 13. 2019.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #7 are vague and do
not specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on her objections
and response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #8,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who
will testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
Page 24 of 33

DENIED.
6. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #9. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant David Down’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Admissions
(Doc. 101 at 71-75):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #2 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #3 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #4 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on his objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Plaintiff further contends the request is not
a hypothetical. Defendant stands on his objections. The Court sustains Defendant’s
objections. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
Page 25 of 33

5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #7,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
6. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #8. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Illinois Department of Corrections’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Admissions (Doc. 101 at 76-83):
1. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #5 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on its objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #6 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Plaintiff asserts he is not asking about a
Wexford policy, but rather, is inquiring about whether there is an IDOC policy. Defendant
stands by its response. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this
interrogatory is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to this
request and explain whether a medical provider is required to notify or receive
authorization from IDOC personnel to take an inmate to an outside medical provider. Said
Page 26 of 33

supplement must be served by September 13. 2019.
3. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #8 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria. Defendant stands on its objections and
response. The Court finds Defendant’s response to be adequate. Plaintiff’s motion to
compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #9 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria.
Defendant’s objections are sustained.

Defendant stands on its objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #10 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria.
Defendant’s objections are sustained.

Defendant stands on its objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #11 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria.
Defendant’s objections are sustained.

Defendant stands on its objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #12 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria.
Defendant’s objections are sustained.

Defendant stands on its objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
8. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #13 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria.
Page 27 of 33

Defendant stands on its objections.

Defendant’s objections are sustained.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
9. Plaintiff complains that Defendant’s objections to interrogatory #14 are vague and do not
specify how they meet the objective criteria.
Defendant’s objections are sustained.

Defendant stands on its objections.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental

response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
10. Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to accurately respond to interrogatory #15,
explaining he did not seek a witness list for trial, but rather, requested names of any
witnesses Defendant planned on calling to testify, as well as the testimony they would
provide. The Court sustains Defendant’s objection. The names of witnesses who will
testify at trial shall be produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(3). Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is
DENIED.
11. Plaintiff asserts that he is not requesting attorney-client privileged information in his
interrogatory #16.

The Court sustains Defendant’s objection.

Plaintiff’s motion to

compel a supplemental response to this interrogatory is DENIED.
Defendant Venerio Santos’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Admissions (Doc. 101 at 84-89):
1. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #1.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
Page 28 of 33

2. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #2.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #3.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #4.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #5.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #6.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
Page 29 of 33

captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff complains that Santos did not respond to his request to admit at interrogatory #7.
Based on the documents in the record, Plaintiff’s request was not captioned as a request to
admit. Santos responded to the request as an interrogatory, and Plaintiff’s requests were
captioned as interrogatories. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel a supplemental
response to this request is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Assistance in taking Depositions (Doc. 102)
Plaintiff asks for assistance in taking depositions of a doctor, a mental health psychologist,
an orthopedic specialist, a nurse, and others. Plaintiff does not identify who he would like to
depose with any particularity. The Court does not identify witnesses for deposition or schedule
the same; as such, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff may depose witnesses pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 31. Plaintiff must make all arrangements and serve all
necessary notices. The Court notes that discovery must be completed by October 11, 2019.
6. Plaintiff’s Request for Counsel (Doc. 106)
Plaintiff again seeks assignment of counsel to represent him in this matter. Plaintiff cites
issues with discovery, including his difficulty in taking depositions and securing subpoenas.
Plaintiff complains about difficulties in receiving documents from Defendants and understanding
court procedures.

Plaintiff also indicates he suffers from various mental and behavioral

conditions. While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff issues concerning discovery and his health
conditions, Plaintiff has not provided a compelling reason for the Court to reconsider its previous
decisions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Page 30 of 33

7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for Discovery and Dispositive Motions (Doc. 107);
Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll Proceedings to Resolve Issues (Doc. 110); IDOC Defendants’
Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 116); IDOC Defendants’ Motion to Amend the Scheduling
Order (Doc. 128); Plaintiff’s Motion to Toll Deadline for Dispositive Motions Until All
Discovery is Resolved and Received (Doc. 131); Defendant Santos’ Joinder in Motion to
Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 135); IDOC Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time
to File a Dispositive Motion (Doc. 137)
In these motions, the parties request various extensions of the discovery and dispositive
motions deadlines due to the outstanding discovery disputes addressed above.

The IDOC

Defendants also ask the Court to enter a protective order requiring them to respond only to
Plaintiff’s first and second set of discovery requests.

In their motion for protective order,

Defendants explain Plaintiff served a third set of discovery requests on May 16, 2019. This set
was served before Plaintiff had received responses to his second set of discovery requests.
Although the Court is mindful of the effort required by Defendants to respond to multiple
discovery requests, it does not find that a protective order is warranted.

Defendants are

ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s third set of requests. However, Defendants need only
provide responses to a cumulative total of 25 written interrogatories (per defendant)2. Insofar as
Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s third set of discovery requests, such responses must
be provided to Plaintiff by September 30, 2019.
In light of the discovery issues in this case, the Court finds good cause to amend the
Scheduling Order3 as follows:

2

It is not clear how many interrogatories have been served on each defendant. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete
subparts.
3
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has been allowed to amend his complaint to add defendant Dr. Ritz. Once
Dr. Ritz is served and a responsive pleading is filed, the Court will address discovery and dispositive motions as to
this newly-named defendant.

Page 31 of 33

1. Discovery shall be completed by October 11, 2019.
2. Dispositive motions shall be filed by November 8, 20194.
For the foregoing reasons, the motions for extension of time (Docs. 107, 128, 137) are
GRANTED, Plaintiff’s motions to toll the proceedings are DENIED (Docs. 110 and 131), IDOC
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 116) is DENIED, and Defendant Santos’ Motion
to Amend the Scheduling Order (Doc. 135) is MOOT.
8. Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (Doc. 111)
Plaintiff submitted two subpoenas for issuance.

Plaintiff’s request for his subpoena

directed to Verizon for phone records belonging to Janet Beppler is DENIED. Ms. Blepper is not
a defendant in this action and there has been no showing that subpoenaing Blepper’s phone records
is relevant or appropriate in this case. Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a subpoena directed to
Carle Foundation Hospital for any records related to treatment for his feet and ankles is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to sign this subpoena and send it back to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is responsible for serving the subpoena in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, and he is also responsible for paying the associated costs even though the Court has found him to be indigent. See Armstead v. MacMillian, 58 F.Appx 210,
213 (7th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (District courts do not have statutory authority to waive witness
fees for indigent civil litigants ).
9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Complaint (Second) at Close of
Discovery/Resolutions (Doc. 134)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend his complaint after all discovery and
discovery disputes are finalized. Plaintiff asserts that allowing him to amend his complaint at the
4

The Court recognizes that Defendant Santos has already filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant can seek
leave to amend his motion if necessary.

Page 32 of 33

conclusion of discovery will provide him the opportunity to obtain all facts and avoid unnecessary
amendments. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. The Court does not grant prospective relief to
amend a complaint. Plaintiff is ADVISED that the Court will consider any motions for leave to
amend pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, noting that the Seventh Circuit
maintains a liberal attitude toward the amendment of pleadings so long as amendments do not
unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant." Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1298 (7th Cir.
1989), and are not unduly delayed or futile or brought with dilatory motive. Guise v. BMW
Mortgage, LLC, 377 F.3d 795, 801 (7th Cir. 2004)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2019
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 33 of 33