Winne v. Knight et al
ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 57 Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 1/20/2017. Mailed to Winne with copy of 57 -1 as directed. (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOSH
KNIGHT, SERGEANT WEBER, and
Currently pending is Mr. Winne’s Objection which has been construed as a
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50); and Defendants’ Motion to Compel and
Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 57.) The motion for reconsideration will be
denied. The motion to compel and motion for extension will be granted.
A. Motion for Reconsideration
Mr. Winne has filed a document entitled, “Plaintiff Objects to Judges’ Order
(Doc. 48).” The Court has construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration.
Local Rule 7.3 provides as follows:
(b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration must be limited to seven pages and must
specifically meet at least one of the following two criteria:
(1) (A) the facts or applicable law are materially different
from the facts or applicable law that the parties presented
to the court before entry of the order for which
reconsideration is sought, and
(B) despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party
applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or
law before entry of the order; or
(2) new material facts emerged or a change of law occurred
after entry of the order.
(c) Prohibition Against Repetition of Argument. No motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written
argument made by the applying party before entry of the order.
Violation of this restriction subjects the offending party to appropriate
The Court denied Mr. Winne’s motion for leave to file accumulated
documents from prison staff because the documents were already in the record.
Mr. Winne objects to this Order by explaining why the documents were relevant to
his arguments. He then asks that the documents be allowed to be part of the
record. Again, the documents attached to Mr. Winne’s motion to file are already
part of the record. There is no need to refile these documents. The Court
considered these documents in its first analysis of Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and it will consider them in its final analysis of Defendants’
motion. The motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time to File
On November 10, 2016, Defendants served Plaintiff with Special Discovery
Requests pursuant to the Court’s October 12, 2016 Order. (Doc. 57-1.) On
December 15, 2016, Mr. Winne signed his responses to Defendants’ discovery.
(Doc. 57-2.) Defendants contend these responses were deficient in that Mr. Winne
replies to most requests by referring Defendants to discovery.
The Court agrees that Mr. Winne’s responses are deficient and almost
meaningless. The Court will require Mr. Winne to file supplemental responses to
Defendants’ discovery requests. Should he fail to comply, the Court will
recommend the dismissal of this action.
In making these responses, Mr. Winne is reminded of the following Local
Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, Local Rule 26.3(a)(1)
requires that “Answers and objections to interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
33 and responses and objections to requests for admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 36 must identify and quote each interrogatory or request for admission in full
immediately preceding the statement of any answer or objection.” Mr. Winne’s
discovery responses fail to comply with this rule. The Court will have the Clerk of
Court provide Mr. Winne with another copy of Defendants’ discovery requests and
Mr. Winne must either write his responses on the copy of Defendants’ discovery
requests or he must rewrite each request prior to providing his response.
Secondly, with regard to the requests for admissions, Mr. Winne is advised
that if he fails to specifically admit or deny each admission, the request for
admission will be deemed admitted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3). Additionally, if a
request for admission is not admitted, the Federal Rules require the following:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or
state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny
it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and
when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a
part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify
or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or
information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party
states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it
knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(4).
Finally, Mr. Winne cannot respond to Defendants’ discovery requests by
referring generally to discovery. He must either admit or deny each request for
admission, he must provide specific responses to each interrogatory, and he must
identify any documents responsive to each request for production of documents.
Defendants’ motion will be granted.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court issues the following;
1. Mr. Winne’s Objection to the Court’s November 16, 2016 Order as
construed as a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50) is DENIED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Motion for Extension of Time to File
Supplemental Briefing (Doc. 57) is GRANTED. Mr. Winne shall serve
supplemental responses to Defendants’ Special Discovery Requests within 14 days
of the date of this Order. Defendants shall file their supplemental brief to the
motion for summary judgment within 30 days of the date of this Order.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Mr. Winne with a copy of
Document 57-1 without the CMECF header.
DATED this 20th day of January, 2017.
/s/ John Johnston
United States Magistrate Judge
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?