Ha'Keem et al v. Mesojedec et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 65 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants' First Set of Discovery Requests served on May 28, 2019 within 30 days of this Order; all deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 62 ), are extended by 90 days; failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal. (Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau on 9/23/2019. (GFK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Maikijah Ha’Keem, Roy Hughes, Jimmy
Booker, and Jacquard Larkin,

Case No. 16-cv-348 (JNE/SER)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
Chad Mesojedec, et al.,
Defendants.

The above-captioned case comes before the undersigned on Defendants’ Motion to
Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 65). No response was submitted by Plaintiffs. Based on all
the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’
Motion to Compel Discovery, (ECF No. 65), is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs Maikijah Ha’Keem, Roy Hughes, Jimmy Booker, and Jacquard Larkin—
who are Muslims civilly committed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (“MSOP”)
in Moose Lake, Minnesota—initiated this lawsuit on February 10, 2016. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 8, 2017. (ECF No. 36). Ultimately,
following Defendants’ motions to dismiss and the Court’s resolution thereof, Plaintiffs
have one surviving claim: that Defendants violated their constitutional rights by
regulating their use of prayer oils. (ECF No. 59). Defendants answered, (ECF No. 61),
and the Court issued its Pretrial Scheduling Order, setting a fact discovery deadline of
October 1, 2019, (ECF No. 62).
On May 28, 2019, Defendants served their First Set of Discovery Requests to

Plaintiffs. (Decl. of Drew D. Bredeson, Ex. 1, ECF No. 68). Plaintiffs did not respond by
the deadline of June 27, 2019. (See Bredeson Decl., Ex. 2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). Defendants sent a letter on July 3, 2019 informing Plaintiffs that
their discovery responses were overdue and noting that, should no responses or
correspondence be received by July 12, 2019, Defendants would move to compel.
(Bredeson Decl., Ex. 2).
On July 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a letter with the Court in response to Defendants’
letter. (ECF No. 63; Bredeson Decl., Ex. 3). Plaintiffs indicated they were hiring an
attorney and requested additional time for that attorney to notice his appearance or, in the
alternative, to respond to the discovery. (ECF No. 63; Bredeson Decl., Ex. 3). The Court
issued an order indicating it would not involve itself in discovery response extensions,
but Plaintiffs could seek an extension from Defendants directly. (ECF No. 64). The Court
also noted it could not force an attorney to make an appearance on Plaintiffs’ behalf.
(ECF No. 64). Defendants reached out to the referenced attorney on the same day as
Plaintiffs’ letter, who informed Defendants he would not be appearing on behalf of
Plaintiffs. (Bredeson Decl., Ex. 4). To date, Plaintiffs have not participated in discovery,
(ECF No. 67, at 2), nor has an attorney appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.
Under Rule 26, “[p]arties 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a responding party fails to meet their discovery
obligations, a requesting party may move to compel disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(1).
2

Here, Plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants’ thirteen interrogatories and
seven requests for production served nearly four months ago. (See Bredeson Decl., Ex.
1). While Plaintiffs are pro se, they are not excused from complying with their discovery
obligations. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs have offered no
opposition to Defendants’ motion; indeed, they have actually expressed an intention to
respond. (ECF No. 63; Bredeson Decl., Ex. 3). Additionally, the Court has reviewed
Defendants’ discovery requests for relevancy and proportionality concerns and finds
none. Defendants are not obligated to wait forever for Plaintiffs’ discovery responses.
Without Plaintiffs’ discovery responses, it is impossible for Defendants to consider
Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the Court orders Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ First Set
of Discovery Requests served on May 28, 2019 within 30 days of this Order.
The Court extends all deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 62), by
90 days to permit the discovery contemplated by this Order. Plaintiffs are warned that
failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of their lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(b)(2)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Date: September 23, 2019

s/ Steven E. Rau
Steven E. Rau
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Ha’Keem, et al. v. Piper, et al.
Case No. 16-cv-348 (JNE/SER)

3