Smith v. McCaughtry et al
Filing
64
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 11/21/11 denying 57 Motion to Compel; denying 58 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 61 request for a hearing. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CORNELL SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 09-C-0404
MATTHEW FRANK, GARY MCCAUGHTRY,
PHIL KINGSTON, MICHAEL THURMER,
STEVEN SCHUELER, THOMAS CORE,
MARK MELCHER, DUWAYNE LONGSETH,
PHIL KUSSMAN, SGT. GILL, BETH LIND,
M. THORP, and RICK RAEMISCH,
Defendants,
DECISION AND ORDER
Now before me are plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, plaintiff’s motion for
enlargement of time, and his request for a hearing.
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery on September 7, 2011. This motion did
not contain the certification required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Civil Local
Rule 37 (E.D. Wis.) that the plaintiff in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the
defendant in an effort to resolve the dispute before bringing his motion. On September 12,
2011, plaintiff filed a motion for enlargement of time, which appears to contain the
certification that the plaintiff attempted to resolve this dispute with defendants before
bringing his motion. However, the extension plaintiff requests is eight additional days for
defendants to respond to his motion to compel. It was not proper for plaintiff to ask for an
extension for the defendants, and this motion will be denied.
Nor did defendants need an extension of time; they filed their response to plaintiff’s
motion to compel on September 19, 2011. Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion to compel
on three grounds: (1) in his motion, plaintiff seeks documents not requested in plaintiff’s
earlier discovery requests to which defendants have responded; (2) the motion does not
contain the required certification of an attempt to confer regarding the discovery dispute
before filing the motion; and (3) defendants stand by the objections they made in their
responses to plaintiff’s document requests and attach a copy of those responses.
Plaintiff then filed a letter that serves as a reply brief, as well as a request for a
hearing on the motion to compel. I do not need a hearing to resolve the motions so
plaintiff’s request will be denied. To expedite matters, I will treat the details set forth in
plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time as the required certification and consider plaintiff’s
motion to compel on the merits.
In his motion to compel, plaintiff seeks numerous documents relating to three other
prisoners. Defendants are correct that to the extent plaintiff seeks documents in his motion
to compel that were not previously requested, such requests were untimely and defendants
had no obligation to respond. Accordingly, I have considered defendants’ objections and
responses to plaintiff’s original document requests regarding the other prisoners.
Defendants conducted a review of prison records and provided plaintiff with information
about the documents found and referenced, but properly objected to the disclosure of
confidential information regarding other prisoners. Further, defendants documented the time
it would take to locate and review each individual incident report and explained that even
reports located would be unable to be disclosed if they contained health or mental health
related information.
2
Plaintiff made no argument in his motion regarding why he needs or is entitled to the
documents regarding these other prisoners. In his letter filed September 22, 2011, plaintiff
explained his theory that defendants have been using illegal policies to target certain
inmates. He believes the documents requested will help him prove that inmates in the same
situation have past conduct histories. He also suggests that he does not need the details
from the reports; he wants to establish that defendants did not impose restriction against the
three prisoners he named. Plaintiff’s requests are still a fishing expedition, and he cannot
overcome the burden a search would be for defendants or the concerns about confidentiality
for the three prisoners he named.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Docket
#57) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of time (Docket
#58) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a hearing (Docket #61) is
DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 21st day of November 2011.
s/
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
3
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?