Luchinski v. Thurmer et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Compel, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 09/11/2015. Unless plaintiff details what specific information he believes he is entitled to that the defendant has not provided after a good faith effort to confer and resolve the dispute, he is not entitled to relief. (cc: all counsel by efile; Luchinski via U.S. Mail) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SHAWN LUCHINSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-C-28

MICHAEL THURMER,
Warden, Waupun Correctional Institution, et al
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

Pro se plaintiff, Shawn Luchinski, has filed a motion to compel discovery. The motion will
be denied because plaintiff has failed to certify that he has conferred with the other party in good
faith in an effort to obtain the discovery sought without court action. See Civil Local Rule 37. It
will also be denied because plaintiff fails to indicate what information he is seeking that has not
been provided. Attached to plaintiff’s motion is the defendant’s response to plaintiff’s first set of
interrogatories. While many of the interrogatories and requests for production have been responded
to, many more are overly broad and seek information outside the scope of discovery. Unless
plaintiff details what specific information he believes he is entitled to that the defendant has not
provided after a good faith effort to confer and resolve the dispute, he is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
SO ORDERED this 11th

day of September, 2015.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court