Foster v. Lombardi et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..DENYING re: 64 MOTION for Leave to Conduct Discovery on First and Second Supplemental Complaints filed by Plaintiff William Wentworth Foster,DENYING 63 MOTION for Leave to filed by Plaintiff William Wentworth Foster. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/19/13. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WILLIAM WENTWORTH FOSTER,
GEORGE LOMBARDI, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Requests for Leave to File
Supplemental Complaint (Doc. No. 63) and Conduct Discovery on First and Second
Supplemental Complaints. (Doc. No. 64) In support of his request for leave to file a second
supplemental complaint, Plaintiff states that he wishes “to raise new actions by original and
newly named defendants.” He seeks leave to pursue discovery “to acquire documentation and
evidence to substantiate claims set forth in his First and Second Supplimental [sic] Complaint,”
and specifically, documentation of Mr. Lombardi’s communications with Congressman William
Lacy Clay and members of the Missouri Legislature, to establish that Lombardi had knowledge
of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs and was deliberately indifferent to those needs. Defendants
oppose Plaintiff’s requests. (Doc. Nos. 65, 66)
The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed Second Supplemental Complaint
(Doc. No. 63-1) and finds the claims he is asserting have already been raised in his First
Supplemental Complaint. (Doc. No. 30) Therefore, the Court will deny his request to file a
second supplemental complaint.
With respect to Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery, the Court notes that Missouri
Department of Corrections Director George Lombardi was dismissed as a party to this action on
September 28, 2012, pursuant to this Court’s § 1915(e)(2)(B) review. (Doc. No. 13) Thus, the
information Plaintiff seeks is neither relevant or material to his claims against Defendants
Corizon, Inc., Hakala and Fincher, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, Defendants state that the
correspondence to Lombardi was in fact produced to Plaintiff on December 31, 2012, as part of
their Rule 26(a) disclosures. (Doc. No. 63-2)
Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated an exceptional circumstance that warrants a
modification of the Court’s scheduling order setting a March 4, 2013 deadline for completion of
discovery in this case, his request for leave to conduct additional discovery will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File Supplemental
Complaint  is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery
on First and Second Supplemental Complaints  is DENIED.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated the 19th day of November, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?