Megna v. Anclam et al

Filing 35

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C Dries on 1/3/2025 DENYING 30 Motion to Compel; DENYING 33 Motion to Strike. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(amb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

WALTER JOSEPH MEGNA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-cv-0588-scd

JOHN MUSIAL et al,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Walter Joseph Megna is representing himself in this 42 U.S.C. §1983 case. On
December 10, 2024, Megna filed a motion to compel. He asserts that Defendants objected to his
discovery requests as overbroad, impermissibly vague, and unduly burdensome. He asks the Court
to compel Defendants to respond to his discovery requests. Defendants responded to the motion
to compel, highlighting that Megna did not attempt to resolve his concerns with opposing counsel
before filing his motion and asserting that, in any event, Defendants substantially responded to his
discovery requests and produced numerous documents. Defendants also filed a motion to strike
three of Megna’s filings because they do not comply with the rules of civil procedure. The Court
will deny both motions.
First, with regard to Megna’s motion to compel, despite acknowledging the requirement
that every motion to compel include a certification that the movant has made a good faith effort to
informally resolve the issue without the Court’s assistance, Megna includes no such certification
in his motion. As Megna notes, under Civil L. R. 37, he was required to first contact opposing
counsel and discuss his concerns before filing a motion to compel. According to Defendants,

Megna did not comply with this requirement, so his motion must be denied. Most parties are able
to resolve discovery disputes without the Court’s involvement, which saves both the Court and the
parties time and resources. Megna explains that he is not knowledgeable in the law, so discussing
his concerns with opposing counsel may be particularly helpful, as he and opposing counsel will
likely be able to reach an understanding regarding the information Megna believes he needs to
prove his claims. The Court reminds the parties that they should work together in good faith to
exchange information that is relevant to Megna’s claims. Counsel should avoid a hyper-technical
reading of Megna’s requests, understanding, as Megna points out, that he has little experience with
the law.
Even if Megna had complied with the meet-and-confer requirement, the Court would have
denied his motion. Defendants are entitled to raise objections to improper requests. Because
Megna does not include his discovery requests or Defendants’ responses along with his motion,
the Court has no way of evaluating whether Defendants’ objections are improper. The Court will
not speculate on this point.
The Court will therefore deny Megna’s motion to compel. He is encouraged to contact
opposing counsel (by telephone or mail) and try to resolve his concerns by narrowing his requests
or better explaining what information he believes he needs. If he and opposing counsel are unable
to resolve the dispute on their own, he may file another motion asking the Court to get involved.
If he does so, he must describe the discovery dispute in detail (i.e., attach a copy of his requests
and Defendants’ responses/objections) and explain what efforts the parties made to resolve the
dispute before involving the Court. Again, the Court reminds Megna that Defendants are allowed
to raise objections to his discovery requests, so he should focus on the answers and documents
they provided notwithstanding their objections when he assesses Defendants’ responses.

2

Finally, Defendants ask the Court to strike Megna’s rebuttal to one of their discovery
responses, his motion to compel, and a settlement demand. Giving Megna the benefit of the doubt,
the Court concludes Megna filed the rebuttal and settlement demand because he is unfamiliar with
how litigation should proceed, not for an improper purpose or to introduce delay, so the Court will
deny Defendants’ motion to strike these filings. Nor will the Court strike Megna’s motion to
compel simply because he failed to comply with the procedural rules. This failure may be grounds
for the Court to deny the motion, but it is not grounds to strike it from the record.
Megna is reminded to communicate directly with Defendants’ counsel (via telephone or
letter) to discuss discovery concerns or make a settlement demand. Megna should not file
communications on those topics with the Court. The docket is the official record of the filings in
the case and should include only pleadings and specific requests to the Court for relief (i.e.,
motions), the supporting declarations and briefs needed to show a right to the relief requested, and
the Court’s decisions and orders disposing of those requests. Cluttering the docket with other
filings creates confusion and interferes with the ability of the Court and the parties “to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Megna’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 30) and
Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 33) are DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on January 3, 2025.
STEPHEN C. DRIES
United States Magistrate Judge

3