Lietz v. Dittmann et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 4/2/13 denying 23 Motion for Discovery; denying 34 Demand for discovery and 35 Request for discovery; denying 38 Counter motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 39 Motion for status update. Further ordering plaintiff to file his response to defendants motion for summary judgment by 5/3/13 or action will be dismissed. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
THADDEUS M. LIETZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-CV-00006

MICHAEL DITTMANN, SCOTT ECKSTEIN,
CAPTAIN CHOJNACKI, MS. POWLESS, and
KELLY MUESKE,
Defendants.

ORDER
One September 24, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for discovery, motion for
subpoenas, and motion of execution to obtain. On November 6, 2012, I ordered
defendants to respond to these motions, which they did on November 7, 2012. Defendants
provided all of the documents sought that were within their control. To the extent plaintiff
wanted records subpoenaed from other people or entities, he must do so himself, following
the procedures outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is not defendants’
responsibility to do plaintiff’s discovery for him; nor is it the court’s.
Similarly, plaintiff’s demand for discovery and request for additional discovery asking
the court to subpoena certain individuals, both filed November 1, 2012, also will be denied.
Plaintiff may have made the demand for discovery because he has seen similar requests
in criminal cases, but the discovery process is different in civil cases. Additionally, plaintiff
did not specify whether he wanted the individuals listed in his “Additional Discovery”
document subpoenaed for depositions or for trial. Either way, the court does not issue
subpoenas for depositions and it is too early to identify witnesses for trial.
On December 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (which was filed November 1, 2012) and counter motion for plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff’s submission does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56 or Civil Local Rule 56(b) (E.D. Wis.), and it is not supported by admissible
evidence. For those reasons, I will deny plaintiff’s motion. I will provide plaintiff with a new
deadline to file an appropriate response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff should carefully review the applicable rules, which defendants provided to him
when they filed their motion. He should respond to each of defendants’ proposed findings
of fact (Docket #89), submit any additional facts, and include references to evidence in the
record. Any evidence plaintiff relies on should be submitted as or attached to a sworn
affidavit or declaration. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
Finally, plaintiff filed a motion to compel on January 24, 2013, asking for a status
update on pending motions. I will deny this request as moot because this order provides
the information plaintiff seeks.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for discovery, motion of
subpoenas, and motion of execution to obtain (Docket #23) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s demand for discovery (Docket #34) and
request for additional discovery asking the court to subpoena certain individuals (Docket
#35) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s counter motion for summary judgment
(Docket #38) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a status update (Docket #39)
is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his response to defendants’
motion for summary judgment on or before Friday, May 3, 2013. Failure to file a response
by that date may result in dismissal of this action.
2

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of April, 2013.

s/ Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3