Shaw v. County of Milwaukee et al

Filing 60

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART 21 Aramark's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution or in the Alternative to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests, DENYING 56 Shaw's Motion for Extension of Time, DENYING 44 Shaw's Motion for judicial disqualification, and DENYING 46 Motion objecting to Judge Griesbach's bias, signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 11/21/2022. Dkt. No. 21 Aramark's Motion to Compel is GRANTED and and Shaw must (1) either confirm he is not seeking damages for physical, emotional, or mental injuries or sign the releases for medical and mental health records tendered by Aramark and (2) sign the authorizations for the disclosure of non-medical jail records within 14 days of the date of this order. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action. Dkt. 21 is DENIED in all other respects. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel and mailed to Shaw, pro se)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM ROBERT SHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 22-C-97

COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff William Robert Shaw, who is representing himself, is proceeding on the following
claims: (1) a First Amendment/Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
claim that Defendants Milwaukee County and Aramark Correctional Services, LLC failed to
provide Kosher meals with meat at the Milwaukee County Jail and (2) First and Fourteenth
Amendment claims that Defendant Matthew Johnston allocated significantly fewer jail resources
to Jewish inmates than to Christian or Muslim inmates. Dkt. No. 8 at 8. Discovery closed
November 7, 2022, and dispositive motions are due December 7, 2022. Dkt. No. 18.
On August 17, 2022, Aramark filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution or in the
alternative to compel responses to discovery requests. Dkt. No. 21. Aramark explained that Shaw
refused to sign authorizations to review his jail file (sent June 28, 2022) and failed to respond to
interrogatories and requests for production of documents (sent June 24, 2022). Id. The requested
authorizations included (1) Department of Corrections - Health Information; (2) Department of
Corrections - Non-Health Information; (3) Milwaukee County Jail - Health Information; and (4)
Milwaukee County Jail - Non-Health Information. See Dkt. No. 23-2. Shaw opposed the motion,

Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 7 Document 60

claiming that the medical authorizations were too broad and sought irrelevant information, such as
his medical care records, mental health care records, dental records, HIV tests, etc., and that he
would not respond to the discovery requests until Aramark amended its answer. Dkt. No. 28.
Shaw also filed a motion to strike Aramark’s answer, arguing that it is “incomplete and confusing
as it doesn’t contain any of Shaw’s pleadings.” Dkt. No. 25.
On September 16, 2022, the Court denied Shaw’s motion to strike Aramark’s answer,
finding that the answer was acceptable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local
Rules and that Shaw could not object to Aramark’s discovery requests based on the answer. Dkt.
No. 29. The Court also directed the parties to work together in good faith to limit the scope of the
medical authorizations. It extended Aramark’s deadline to reply to the motion to dismiss by 30
days so that it could provide information on whether the parties were able to reach agreement on
the scope of the medical authorizations. Id.
Aramark filed a reply to the motion on October 13, 2022, explaining that Shaw still had
not signed any of the authorizations (medical or non-medical) or responded to any other discovery
requests. Dkt. No. 37. It asserted that Shaw is intentionally impeding litigation and preventing it
from defending the case. Id. On October 24, 2022, the Court ordered Aramark to supplement its
reply by November 2, 2022, and explain what efforts it made to reach out to Shaw after the Court’s
September 16, 2022 order to resolve the issues surrounding the scope of the authorizations and/or
other discovery issues; Shaw’s response to its efforts (if any); and why Aramark needs access to
Shaw’s health information when this case involves his religion. Dkt. No. 41. The Court advised
that Shaw could respond to the supplement by November 16, 2022.
On October 31, 2022, Shaw filed an oppositional reply to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No.
48. He asserted that the Court should deny the motion as premature because it was filed a week

2
Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 7 Document 60

or two before his deadline to respond to the discovery requests. Shaw maintains that he has since
responded to Aramark’s discovery requests to the best of his ability. Id.
Aramark filed its supplement on November 2, 2022. Dkt. No. 51. It indicated that, on
October 24, 2022, it received Shaw’s responses to its interrogatories and requests for production,
but Shaw’s responses were unresponsive and failed to provide any substantive information. On
October 28, 2022, it wrote to Shaw explaining that he needed to identify the injuries he alleges he
sustained so that Aramark could determine whether records regarding his physical, emotional, or
mental health are relevant to the claims and defenses Shaw asserts. Aramark indicated that if Shaw
either supplemented his discovery responses or confirmed in writing that he is not asserting
physical, emotional, or mental injuries or damages, Aramark would withdraw its request for the
medical authorizations.

In addition, Aramark reminded Shaw that it served him with an

authorization for release of his non-medical jail records on June 28, 2022, and asserted that he
should return a signed copy of the authorization immediately. Id. In its supplement, Aramark
advised that, as of November 2, 2022, Shaw had failed or refused to execute an authorization for
non-medical information, even though Shaw had never objected to the release of this information.
Shaw has not filed a response to the supplement.
Even if Aramark filed its motion to dismiss prematurely, Shaw has now had over five
months to sign the non-medical authorizations, and he is still refusing to do so. Shaw has never
objected to the release of this information. Indeed, Shaw’s non-medical information and the
records relating to his incarceration at the Milwaukee County Jail are clearly relevant to the claims
he asserts against Aramark. Aramark cannot properly defend this case without Shaw’s jail file,
and Shaw’s issues with the scope of medical authorizations do not explain why he refuses to sign
the authorizations for his non-medical jail file. Shaw has also failed to respond to Aramark’s offer

3
Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 7 Document 60

to withdraw its request for medical authorizations provided he confirm in writing that he would
not seek any damages for physical, emotional, or mental distress. By bringing this action and
refusing to confirm that he will not seek damages for physical, emotional, or mental distress, Shaw
has placed the medical information sought by Aramark at issue and waived any right to privacy he
may otherwise have with respect to his medical records. While the Court will not dismiss Shaw’s
claims against Aramark at this point, it will grant its motion to compel. Shaw must (1) either
confirm he is not seeking damages for physical, emotional, or mental injuries or sign the releases
for medical and mental health records tendered by Aramark and (2) sign the authorizations for the
disclosure of non-medical jail records within 14 days of the date of this order. Failure to do so
may result in the dismissal of this action.
On November 14, 2022, Shaw also filed a motion to extend the time to conduct discovery
from November 7, 2022, to April 7, 2023, and to extend the dispositive motion deadline from
December 7, 2022, to May 26, 2023. Dkt. No. 56. Although Shaw asserts that he “has issues with
some of the [defendants’ discovery] responses and needs to conduct further discovery to follow up
on his previous discovery requests, he has not explained what discovery requests are still
outstanding. Id. at 2. Shaw has had ample time to conduct meaningful discovery in this case. He
has not established good cause to extend the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines by five
months. Therefore, Shaw’s motion for an extension of time is denied.
On October 31, 2022, Shaw filed a motion for judicial disqualification or in alternative for
change of venue to the Milwaukee division and a motion objecting to this Court’s perceived bias.
Dkt. Nos. 44 & 46. Shaw states that the Court is unfairly compromising his civil cases due to
racial discrimination. Dkt. No. 44 at 1. With respect to this case, Shaw states that the Court
allegedly ordered him to respond to a motion to compel that was premature. Id. Shaw states that

4
Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 7 Document 60

when he made the same mistake in a different case, the Court denied his motion. Id. In Shaw v.
Seel, et al., Case No. 20-C-365 (E.D. Wis.), the Court allegedly gave legal advice to Defendants
on “how to litigate against Shaw.” Id. at 2. The Court was also allegedly rude and disrespectful
to Shaw during a hearing. Id. And, in Shaw v. City of Milwaukee, Case No. 20-C-1544 (E.D.
Wis.), the Court allegedly made Shaw relitigate an issue that was already argued and decided in a
different case, Collins v. City of Milwaukee, et al., Case No. 17-C-234 (E.D. Wis.). Id. at 3. Shaw
had to conduct the “same and/or similar discovery” but was limited to obtaining records that were
less than 100 pages, otherwise he had to pay a fee. Id. The Court also denied his request for a
settlement conference. Dkt. No. 45 at 3. Shaw asks for a new judge or to change venue to the
Milwaukee Division. Dkt. No. 44.
Shaw’s accusations of bias and prejudice are baseless. In this case, Aramark’s prematurely
filed motion to compel needed a response because Shaw had already refused to sign authorizations,
meaning this case could not go forward. Shaw’s prematurely filed motion to compel in his other
case did not need a response because Defendants simply had not had enough time to respond to
the discovery requests. In other words, unlike Shaw, Defendants were not refusing to respond to
discovery; they just needed more time. A response was therefore unnecessary.
Second, during the motion hearing in Case No. 20-C-365, the Court ordered Defendants to
go back and check whether the videotape evidence Shaw wanted actually existed. Contrary to
Shaw’s assertion, the Court did not prohibit him from getting evidence he wanted for his Monell
claim—it assisted him in acquiring the evidence he asked for. Ultimately, the videotape evidence
he wanted did not exist, or was too burdensome to acquire, but that does not mean the Court is
“always being in favor to Defendants.” See Dkt. No. 45 at 1. Shaw also claimed that the Court
instructed Defendants to conduct a deposition to ask about weather temperatures, see id. at 2, but

5
Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 7 Document 60

that motion hearing did not involve a discussion of depositions. To the extent Shaw believes the
Court was rude and disrespectful, the Court has a duty to control its legal proceedings, and it has
the authority to limit arguments to keep the case on track.
Third, with respect to Case No. 20-C-1544, Shaw is required to litigate his own case. He
cannot claim that Collins v. City of Milwaukee has already resolved his case in his favor. Shaw
must also finance his own litigation, and there is nothing improper about having to pay a fee for
records that are over 100 pages. The City of Milwaukee has an ordinance that requires fees for
documents, and other litigants must pay for all of their records. Shaw must only pay for those that
are voluminous. Further, the Court is not involved in settlement discussions, so Shaw must directly
contact Defendants to make a settlement offer.
Finally, Shaw notes that the Court keeps inquiring about when his underlying criminal
cases are going to trial. Dkt. No. 45. He believes this is suspicious because the Court is “keenly
interested in the outcome of the matter.” Id. at 3. But the Court is inquiring about his criminal
trial for purposes of scheduling and determining whether he will remain in the Milwaukee County
Jail. To the extent this case goes to trial, the Court seeks to avoid conflicts with his underlying
criminal trial. The Court will deny the motion for judicial disqualification or in the alternative a
change of venue to Milwaukee and motion objecting to Judge Griesbach’s bias.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Aramark’s motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution, or alternatively, to compel (Dkt. No. 21) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIEDIN-PART. The motion to compel is granted, and Shaw must (1) either confirm he is not seeking
damages for physical, emotional, or mental injuries or sign the releases for medical and mental
health records tendered by Aramark and (2) sign the authorizations for the disclosure of non-

6
Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 7 Document 60

medical jail records within 14 days of the date of this order. Failure to do so may result in the
dismissal of this action. The motion is denied in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Shaw’s motion for judicial disqualification or in
alternative for change of venue to the Milwaukee division and motion objecting to Judge
Griesbach’s bias (Dkt. Nos. 44 & 46) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Shaw’s motion for an extension of time to conduct
discovery (Dkt. No. 56) is DENIED.
Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 21st day of November, 2022.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach
United States District Judge

7
Case 1:22-cv-00097-WCG Filed 11/21/22 Page 7 of 7 Document 60