COOK et al v. WILEY et al

Filing 119

ENTRY ON STATUS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 10, 2019. On October 10, 2019, the Court conducted a status conference in this action. Defendants appeared by counsel. Plaintiffs Cook, Grider, and Peacher participated pro se by video and Plaintiff Lainhart participated pro se by telephone. As a result of the conference, the Court issues the following rulings: Plaintiffs' motion to compel, dkt. [ 56 ], is granted to the extent that Defendants must produce the following (see Entry). Plaintiffs' motion for order to obtain affidavits, dkt. [ 64 ], is granted to the extent that Defendants represented that there is no policy preventing Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) staff from providing statements or declarations to inmates for litigation purposes. The policy reportedly requires staff to notify the Warden if they do give statements or declarations to inmates. As will be discussed further in this Entry, if counsel is recruited, counsel will assist Plaintiffs in obtaining declarations o r conducting depositions, if the case does not settle before such discovery is needed. Plaintiffs' motion for assist ance with obtaining a court reporter, dkt. [ 69 ], is denied because the Court lacks the authority to do so. Plaintiffs' motion to grant motion to compel, dkt. [ 71 ], is granted to the extent consistent with the ruling in paragraph 1 of this Entry. Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time for discovery, dkt. [ 77 ], and Defendants' motion to extend discovery deadline, dkt. [[92 ]], are granted subject to the pretrial schedule being reset after a settlement conference that will be set by separate order. Discovery may proceed in the meantime. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to take depositions by interrogatories, dkt. [ 78 ], is denied as moot. Plaintiffs' motion to appear at depositions, dkt. [ 93 ], is granted. Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [ 95 ], is granted to the extent that the deadline to respond will be reset, if necessary, after the settlement conference. Plaintiffs' motion for ruling on motion for summary judgment, dkt. [ 98 ], is denied as premature. Plaintiffs' motion to compel requests for production, dkt. [ 107 ], is granted to the extent consistent with the ruling in paragraph 1 of this Entry. Defendants' motion for in camera review, dkt. [ 117 ], is granted. The clerk is requested to include copy of the Court's Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel with Plaintiffs' copies of this Entry. See Entry for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (Attachments: # 1 Blank Form - Mot ion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel re: Edward C. Cook, # 2 Blank Form - Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel re: Jason Grider, # 3 Blank Form - Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel re: Kenneth Lainhart, # 4 Blank Form - Motion for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel re: Robert Peacher)(SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
EDWARD C. COOK,
JASON GRIDER,
KENNETH LAINHART,
ROBERT PEACHER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES WILEY Sergeant,
JASON GRIFFITH Sergeant,
MICHAEL SPURGIN Captain,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-03198-SEB-TAB

ENTRY ON STATUS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 10, 2019
On October 10, 2019, the Court conducted a status conference in this action. Defendants
appeared by counsel. Plaintiffs Cook, Grider, and Peacher participated pro se by video and
Plaintiff Lainhart participated pro se by telephone.
As a result of the conference, the Court issues the following rulings:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, dkt. [56], is granted to the extent that Defendants must
produce the following:
a. The names and job titles of staff members who were on the unit on September 4,
2018;
b. A video from the chow hall on September 8, 2019, in which Defendant Griffin
allegedly talked to Peacher about the September 4, 2018, incident; and
c. Defendant Michael Spurgin’s responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for admission (if
not already served).
With respect to redacted documents discussed during the conference, Defendants
reported that they have sent a privilege log to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall review the

privilege log and if they have additional objections, they shall attempt to resolve those
with defense counsel before seeking any intervention from the Court.
2. Plaintiffs’ motion for order to obtain affidavits, dkt. [64], is granted to the extent that
Defendants represented that there is no policy preventing Indiana Department of
Correction (IDOC) staff from providing statements or declarations to inmates for
litigation purposes. The policy reportedly requires staff to notify the Warden if they
do give statements or declarations to inmates. As will be discussed further in this Entry,
if counsel is recruited, counsel will assist Plaintiffs in obtaining declarations or
conducting depositions, if the case does not settle before such discovery is needed.
3. Plaintiffs’ motion for assistance with obtaining a court reporter, dkt. [69], is denied
because the Court lacks the authority to do so.
4. Plaintiffs’ motion to grant motion to compel, dkt. [71], is granted to the extent
consistent with the ruling in paragraph 1 of this Entry.
5. Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time for discovery, dkt. [77], and Defendants’
motion to extend discovery deadline, dkt. [92], are granted subject to the pretrial
schedule being reset after a settlement conference that will be set by separate order.
Discovery may proceed in the meantime.
6. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to take depositions by interrogatories, dkt. [78], is denied
as moot because if depositions are needed after the settlement conference, recruited
counsel will assist in that way.
7. Plaintiffs’ motion to appear at depositions, dkt. [93], is granted. They have the right to
be present if depositions are taken. If Plaintiffs have counsel, Plaintiffs’ appearance at
any deposition shall be by counsel. If Plaintiffs do not have counsel, Plaintiffs shall be

2

permitted to appear telephonically. Given the logistics of the four Plaintiffs being
incarcerated at two different facilities, it is not practical to allow Plaintiffs to participate
to a more significant degree.
8. Defendants’ motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment, dkt. [95], is granted to the extent that the deadline to respond will be reset,
if necessary, after the settlement conference. Plaintiffs shall also discuss with recruited
counsel whether their motion for summary judgment will be withdrawn without
prejudice prior to the settlement conference.
9. Plaintiffs’ motion for ruling on motion for summary judgment, dkt. [98], is denied as
premature.
10. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel requests for production, dkt. [107], is granted to the
extent consistent with the ruling in paragraph 1 of this Entry.
11. The parties discussed interrogatories directed to Defendant Spurgin that asked about
incidents relating to a non-party witness. The Court sustained Defendants’ objection
on the basis of relevancy.
12. Defendants’ motion for in camera review, dkt. [117], is granted. The Court reviewed
the documents at issue and agrees that they do raise safety concerns. Defendants do
not object to producing the policies at issue to recruited counsel “for counsel’s eyes
only.” Thus, Defendants shall produce the documents within seven (7) days of
recruited counsel’s appearance in the case.
13. Plaintiffs identified six individuals from whom they want to either obtain
affidavits/declarations or take depositions. One of those individuals is former IDOC
employee Sgt. Patrick Detrick. Defendants have agreed to provide Sgt. Detrick’s last

3

known address and any other relevant contact information to recruited counsel so that,
if needed, counsel will be able to attempt to contact Sgt. Detrick.
14. The parties agreed that it would be beneficial for the Court to set this action for a
settlement conference. The Court will attempt to recruit counsel to assist Plaintiffs
with preparing for and participating in the settlement conference. If the case does not
settle, recruited counsel will be asked to assist Plaintiffs with either obtaining
affidavits/declarations from witnesses or taking depositions.
15. The clerk is requested to include a copy of the Court’s Motion for Assistance with
Recruiting Counsel with Plaintiffs’ copies of this Entry. Plaintiffs shall each complete
and sign this form because it includes conditions to which each Plaintiff must agree
whenever the Court recruits volunteer counsel. Plaintiffs shall each file this motion
not later than October 30, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 10/11/2019

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
EDWARD C. COOK
998849
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
JASON GRIDER
966629
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
4

KENNETH LAINHART
G D6-5
INDIANA STATE PRISON
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
ROBERT PEACHER
881627
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only

Lyubov Gore
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]
Brandon Alan Skates
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]

5