Barnes v. Brown County et al
Filing
218
ORDER signed by Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr. for Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/11/2016 DENYING 186 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. County Defendants to resend to plaintiff the disc described at pp. 3-4 of this Order. Limited discovery reopened regarding former Doe defendants Scanlan, Brodbeck, and Young. Discovery deadline 3/14/2016; Dispositive Motions deadline 4/15/2016. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Lamon Barnes at Fox Lake Correctional Institution) (cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LAMON LAMAR BARNES,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 13-CV-607
BROWN COUNTY,
BROWN COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE,
DAVE POTEAT,
JEFF LADE,
ZAK HOSCHBACH,
MARK HACKETT,
JOHN LAUX,
GUY SHEPARDSON,
INVESTIGATOR DERNBACH,
VILLAGE OF ASHWAUBENON,
CITY OF GREEN BAY,
JUJUAN JONES,
DTF INVESTIGATOR SCANLAN,
MARY LYNN YOUNG,
and BRAD BRODBECK,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel discovery in which he
requests that the Court compel the defendants to fully answer and respond to
interrogatories and requests for production of documents previously served on
the defendants (ECF No. 186). In response, the Brown County defendants
(Brown County, Brown County Drug Task Force, Dave Poteat, Mark Hackett,
Guy Shepardson, Zak Hoschbach, Brad Brodbeck) contend that the Court
should deny the plaintiff’s motion because they appropriately responded to
each discovery request. The County defendants contend that the plaintiff’s
motion does not meet the substance of their objections to the requests and,
instead of addressing why the objections are not proper, the plaintiff adds
explanation as to why he needs the requested material and what he was
actually requesting.
The plaintiff’s motion to compel is fully briefed and, for the reasons
explained herein, the Court will deny the motion.
This order also sets
deadlines for limited discovery as to the newly identified and served Doe
defendants (DTF Investigator Scanlan, Brad Brodbeck, Mary Lynn Young),
and for filing dispositive motions. Defendant JuJuan Jones has been served
(ECF No. 210), but he did not answer the amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
The Court addresses each challenged discovery request below.
1. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. No. 2
REQUEST NO. 1: Any and all designated electronically stored
information in Brown County’s administrative “W-Drive” in its
complete indexed form, depicting dates it was obtained in
relation to and/or in connection with Brown County Drug Task
Force (hereinafter DTF) investigation 10-269, including but not
limited to: photographs, sound recordings, video recordings,
images, and other data or data compilations stored in any
medium from which information can be obtained. Ingle v. Yelton,
439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006).
-2-
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
through the use of the phrases “any and all” and “Brown
Counties’ administrative ‘W-Drive.’” Without waiving this
objection and in an effort to be responsive, see attached Exhibit
A, which includes all electronically stored information related to
DTF investigation 10-269.
(ECF No. 196 at 2-3.)
In his motion to compel, the plaintiff contends that the DVD the
defendants provided him in response to this request (Exhibit A, ECF No. 1056), was faulty because numerous files did not open and because it contained
only one digital file for DTF investigation 10-269-004 and there should be
numerous files. The plaintiff also contends that the DVD did not contain the
controlled transaction from October 21, 2010, or October 29, 2010.
In response, the defendants contend that the plaintiff’s inability to play
the files is not a basis for a motion to compel. They assert that they provided
him with digital files in the same file format in which they were originally
recorded, and each of the files can be opened and played using standard,
widely available software. According to the defendants, they have produced
all digital recordings created as part of DTF Investigation 10-269.
The defendants provided the plaintiff with a DVD containing all digital
recordings created as part of the requested investigation. According to the
defendants, they sent the plaintiff a second DVD on March 10, 2015, after
reviewing the disc from their file and discovering that the digital files
-3-
pertaining to investigations 10-0269-001, 10-0269-002, 10-0269-003, and 100269-004 did not copy onto the disc saved for their file. (ECF No. 196 at 4.)
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ representation that they sent him a
second disc is a “complete fabrication” and he avers that he never received the
second disc. (ECF No. 209.) The defendants submitted the FedEx tracking
information which shows that they submitted an overnight package to the
plaintiff at Fox Lake Correctional Institution on March 10, 2015, that arrived
there on March 11, 2015. (ECF No. 213-1.)
Because the defendants have provided the plaintiff with all of the
digital files, there is nothing for the Court to compel the defendants to
produce. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this discovery request will
be denied. However, the defendants did not have control over the handling of
the second disc once it reached Fox Lake Correctional Institution.
Thus,
under the circumstances and because the plaintiff swears that he did not
receive the second disc, the Court will direct the County defendants to send
him the disc again.
2. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. 2
REQUEST NO. 2: Any and all designated documents by Brown
County, DTF and/or any public employee created in relation to
and/or in connection with DTF investigation 10-269 including
but not limited to: investigative reports, surveillance reports,
controlled buy reports, activity logs, graphs, charts, photographs,
images, data or data compilations and/or memoranda not
included in item 1 (one) of this request. Clark v. Township Falls,
-4-
124 F.R.D. 91 (E.D. Pa. 1988), Hayden v. Maldonado, 110 F.R.D.
154 (N.D. N.Y. 1986); Segura v. City of Reno, 116. F.R.D. 42 (D.
Nev. 1987).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
through the use of the phrase “any and all.” Without waiving this
objection and in an effort to be responsive, see attached Exhibit
B.
(ECF No. 196 at 5.)
The plaintiff contends that the defendants failed to provide him with
case activity reports, surveillance reports, investigative fund receipts, and
controlled buy reports for DTF investigation 10-269, case 10-269-004, dated
October 21, 2010. The County defendants contend that they did not produce
the requested materials for October 21, 2010, because none exist. According
to the defendants, although there was an “operational plan” for a transaction
or buy for October 21, 2010, it never went beyond the planning stage. The
defendants assert that they cannot produce that which does not exist.
“Simply put, there are not now, nor were there ever, any ‘case activity reports,
surveillance reports, Investigative fund receipts, and controlled buy reports
for DTF investigation 10-269 case 10-269-004 dated October 21, 2010,’ because
no controlled buy or controlled transaction occurred in DTF investigation 10269 on October 21, 2010.” (ECF No. 196 at 9) (emphasis in original).
The Court finds that the defendants fully responded to this discovery
request.
-5-
3. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. 3
REQUEST NO. 3: Any and all documents created as part of or
in connection with JuJuan Bernard Jones (hereinafter Jones)
informant file related to DTF investigation 10-269, that are not
deemed personal information/data including but not limited to:
activity log indexed, receipt for cash payments indexed, amounts
of controlled buy money expended indexed, memorandums
regarding informant conduct, cooperating individual agreement,
informant statements, rules regarding informants and
documentation of any representation made on Jones’ behalf or
nonmonetary consideration furnished for his use as an informant
not included in items 1 and 2 of this request. Rosee v. Board of
Trade City of Chicago, 36 F.R.D. 684 (N.D. IL 1965); Carl Zeiss
Stiftung v. V.E.B. Carl Zeiss, Jena, 40 F.R.D. 318, 329 (D.C.
1966), aff 128 U.S. App. D.C. 10, 384 F. 2d 979 (1967); Olson v.
Camp, 328 F. Supp. 728 (E.D. Mich 1970; United States v.
Reynolds, 345 U.S.I (1953); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963). Boyd v. Gillet, 64 F.R.D. 169 (D. MD 1974).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
through the use of the phrase “any and all.” Without waiving this
objection and in an effort to be responsive, see attached Exhibit
C.
(ECF No. 196 at 10.)
In his motion to compel, the plaintiff contends that the defendants
erroneously failed to provide him with investigative fund expense reports
related to each controlled transaction that JuJuan Jones participated in. In
response, the County defendants contend that the plaintiff mischaracterizes
their response regarding the existence of investigative fund expense reports.
According to the County defendants, there is a difference between a
controlled “buy” and a controlled “transaction.”
-6-
Specifically, a controlled
transaction is “any act that is conducted with a Confidential Information
and/or Under Cover Officer to buy, sell, or pay for contraband” while a
controlled buy is “[a] purchase of contraband by utilizing a Confidential
Information and/or Under Cover Officer by using pre-recorded U.S. currency.”
(ECF No. 196 at 11.)
The County defendants explain that a controlled
transaction may not involve the use of U.S. currency, and therefore there may
not be a corresponding investigative fund expense report for each controlled
transaction JuJuan Jones participated in.
The plaintiff has not shown that the defendants failed to properly
respond to his discovery request. Thus, the Court will deny the plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to this request.
4. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. 8
REQUEST NO. 8: Any log, or other indexed documentation by
Brown County and/or its employees, DTF, and/or any
municipality including the Brown County Sheriff’s Department
that lists and/or states the name of each DTF Investigator and/or
Law Enforcement Official who participated in each controlled
buy investigation targeting the plaintiff for DTF Investigation
10-269 including but not limited to, duty roster and personnel
records that depict the hiring dates of said officers, if applicable.
Their reason for termination or removal from position,
training/education and grievance complaints filed against each
officer since date of hire until present. Boyd v. Gollet, 64 F.R.D.
169 (D. MD 1974); Denver Policemen’s Protective Asso v.
Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1981); A’Antoni v. Roach,
1997, U.S. Dist. Lexis 16085, 1997 WL 627601 (E.D. LA 1997);
Murphy v. Keller, 950 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1992); Ramirez v.
County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407 (C.D. Col. 2005); Martinez
v. Cornell Correctional of Texas; 229 F.R.D. 215 (D. N.M. 2005);
-7-
Scaif v. Boenne, 191 F.R.D. 590 (N.D. IN 2006); Cox v. McCullan,
174 F.R.D.32 (W.D. N.Y. 1997).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request would require these
answering defendants to create a document not in existence. A
document that does not exist is not within a party’s possession,
custody, or control and therefore this Request exceeds the scope
of FRCP 34(a)(1). Further object on the basis that it is
impermissibly vague and it seeks information that is not likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to FRCP
26(b)(1) and FRCP 34(a) inasmuch as it requests the “duty roster
and personnel records that depict the hiring dates of said
officers.” Further object that the Request is impermissibly vague
and it appears to seek information that is not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to FRCP 26(b)(1) and
FRCP 34(a) inasmuch as it contains a statement, not phrased as
a request, “Their reason for termination or removal from
position, training/education and grievance complaints filed
against each officer since date of hire until present.” Further
object on the basis that this Request seeks information outside of
the custody, control or possession of these answering defendants
inasmuch as it requests information from “any municipality,”
and therefore this portion of the Request exceeds the scope of
FRCP 34(a)(1).
Without waiving these objections and in an effort to be
responsive, see Exhibits A and B, which contain all records
related to DTF investigation 10-269.
(ECF No. 196 at 12.)
In his motion to compel, the plaintiff challenges the defendants’ failure
to provide him with the requested documentation reflecting the termination or
removal of each officer from their position, or complaints filed against each
officer who participated in DTF investigation 10-269. The plaintiff requests
that the Court compel the defendants to provide the reason for termination or
-8-
removal from position, training/education, and grievance complaints filed
against each officer who participated in DTF investigation 10-269 since their
date of hire until present. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks information as to
why defendant Mark Hackett was removed from the Drug Task Force and is
now a Patrol Deputy.
The County Defendants contend that the plaintiff’s request for
personnel records exceeds the scope of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)
and 34(a). According to the defendants, Mark Hackett was not “demoted,
terminated, or otherwise removed from his position as a DTF Investigator for
cause or as the result of any complaint.” (ECF No. 196 at 14.) They also point
out that the plaintiff did not address their objection that they have no duty to
create a document not in existence.
The Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel because the
defendants responded to this discovery request. Also, the plaintiff has not
shown how the requested documents would help him support his claim.
5. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. 9
REQUEST NO. 9: Any and all policies, directives, or
instructions concerning the use of the Brown County, DTF and
any municipality including the Brown County Sheriff’s
Department, that make up the DTF use of ‘No Strip-Search’ of
confidential informant policy utilized to increase private citizen
participation in relation to Drug Investigations. Clarke v.
Township of Falls, 124 F.R.D. 91 (E.D. PA 1988); Jones v.
Blanas, 393 F. 3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004); Jones v. DeRosa, 238
F.R.D. 157 (D. N.J. 2006).
-9-
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
through the use of the phrase “any and all.” Further object on
the basis that this Request seeks information outside of the
custody, control or possession of these answering defendants
inasmuch as it requests information from “any municipality,”
and therefore this portion of the Request exceeds the scope of
FRCP 34(a)(1). Without waiving these objections and in an effort
to be responsive, see Exhibit D.
(ECF No. 196 at 15.)
In his motion to compel, the plaintiff requests that the Court compel
the defendants to produce the custom, policy, or practice that supports Mark
Hackett’s testimony that the DTF does not strip search confidential
informants because confidential informants will be less likely to assist the
DTF if they do strip search them.
The County Defendants contend that the Court should deny the
plaintiff’s motion as to this request because they produced the relevant Brown
County Drug Task Force written policies, including its policy for strip
searches. They further state that there is no document that exists to support
the plaintiff’s theory. According to the defendants, Lieutenant David Poteat’s
affidavit specifically addresses the issue of strip searching confidential
informants:
That while DTF policies do not require confidential informants to
be strip searched, DTF policies do not prohibit DTF officers from
strip searching a confidential informant if DTF officers have a
reasonable belief or suspicion that a confidential informant is
hiding contraband on his or her person.
- 10 -
(ECF No. 196 at 16.)
The County defendants provided the plaintiff with the strip search
policy. The Court cannot compel the defendants to produce documents that do
not exist. Thus, the plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this discovery request
will be denied.
6. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. 12, 15, 14
REQUEST NO. 12: Any and all policies, directives, or
instructions by Brown County, DTF and/or any municipality
including the Brown County Sheriff’s Department that make up
the DTF concerning the specific procedures for processing and
resolving complaints by citizens regarding the misconduct of
officers. Green v. Baca, 219 F.R.D. 485 (C.D. CA 2003).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
through the use of the phrase “any and all.” Further object on
the grounds that this Request seeks information outside of the
custody, control or possession of these answering defendants
inasmuch as it requests information from “any municipality,”
and therefore this portion of the Request exceeds the scope of
FRCP 34(a)(1). Without waiving this objection and in an effort to
be responsive, see attached Exhibit E.
REQUEST NO. 15: If the requested information is set forth in
any document provide the document. Provide documentation of
how the (2008) written procedure specifically for complaints
regarding the conduct of DTF officials was then made available
for public scrutiny for both the general public and citizens
confined in the Brown County Jail. If the procedure is different
for incarcerated citizens than for the general public provide both
procedures. If these procedures are set forth in any policy,
directive or other document produce the documents.
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
and contains multiple parts through the use of the phrase, “If the
- 11 -
procedure is different for incarcerated citizens than for the
general public provide both procedures.” Further object on the
basis that the Request is impermissibly vague through the use of
the phrase, “If these procedures are set forth in any policy,
directive or other document produce the documents,” as it is
unclear to what procedures the Request is referring. Without
waiving these objections and in an effort to be responsive, the
complaint procedure is the same for the general public and
incarcerated citizens.
REQUEST NO. 14: Provide documentation reflecting Brown
County Sheriff citizen complaint procedure with a copyright date
of 2008.
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request relies on an assumption,
namely that the Brown County Sheriff’s Department’s citizen
complaint procedure is copyrighted. Without waiving the
objection and in an effort to be responsive, see Exhibit E,
previously produced in response to Plaintiff’s Request for
Production of Documents.
(ECF No. 196 at 16, 17, 18.)
The plaintiff requests that the Court compel the defendants to produce
documentation which describes where the citizen complaint policy was
displayed and/or posted in the Brown County Jail in 2010. According to the
plaintiff, this information is necessary to show that Brown County Jail
inmates in 2010 had no opportunity to participate in complaint procedures,
therefore making it an unconstitutional complaint procedure.
The County Defendants assert that they produced the requested citizen
complaint procedures, per Request 12, and that they responded to Request 15
in that they stated that the complaint procedure is the same for the general
- 12 -
public as it is for incarcerated persons. According to the defendants, they did
not produce any other materials because there are no other responsive
documents aside from the policy produced. Lastly, the defendants clarify that
the policy they provided is not copyrighted. Rather, the policy contained a
page footer which included a print date of “10/6/2014.” (ECF No. 196 at 18.)
The County defendants’ response shows that they fully responded to
the discovery requests at issue. The Court will therefore deny the plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to these requests.
7. ECF No. 85, Doc. Req. 18
REQUEST NO. 18: Any and all designated documents and/or
electronically stored information maintained in the Brown
County Administrative “W-Drive” maintained as an Unofficial
report in relation to or in connection with DTF Investigation 10269, not given to the Brown County District Attorney and
Defense Counsel for the plaintiff collected from September 2010
until March 2012; Boyd v. Gollet, 64 F.R.D. 169 (D. MD 1974);
Denver Policemen’s Protective Asso v. Lichtenstein, 660 F.2d 432
(10th Cir. 1981); Bogle v. McClure, 332 F. 3d 1347 (11th Cir.
2003); Clarke v. Township of Falls, 124 F.R.D. 91 (E.D. PA 1988).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Request is impermissibly vague
through the use of the phrases “any and all” and “Brown County
Administrative ‘W-Drive.’” Further object on the basis that the
Request relies on an assumption, namely that “unofficial reports”
exist and that any such reports were “not given to the Brown
County District Attorney and Defense Counsel for the plaintiff.”
(ECF No. 196 at 19.)
In his motion to compel, the plaintiff contends that the defendants
withheld and omitted information related to the DTF investigation 10-269-004
- 13 -
dated October 21, 2010, from records and files that were used when DTF
agent Mark Hackett referred investigation 10-269 to the Brown County
District Attorney.
The plaintiff requests that the Court compel the
defendants to provide him with all documents, audio, and video records not
previously provided that were created in related to DTF investigation 10-269.
The County Defendants contend that the Court should deny the
plaintiff’s motion because they cannot produce that which does not exist.
According to the defendants, the plaintiff’s motion to compel does not meet the
substance of their objections or explain how they were improper.
The
defendants assert that the plaintiff’s contention that he “revealed a practice
where DTF agents prepared Case Activity Reports” that “omit information
though highly relevant and sometimes exculpatory” is wrong. (ECF No. 187
at 10.) The defendants assert that the plaintiff “has revealed no such thing
and he offers no evidence whatsoever to support such an assertion, let alone
that it has anything to do with ‘unofficial reports’ maintained on an
Administrative W-Drive.” (ECF No. 196 at 20.) The defendants contend that
the Court should deny the plaintiff’s motion because the plaintiff’s theory does
not demonstrate that any information responsive to his request was not
produced, nor does it demonstrate that the County Defendants’ objections
were inappropriate.
The plaintiff has not shown that the County defendants failed to
- 14 -
produce responsive information or that the defendants’ objections were
inappropriate. Thus, the Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
this discovery request.
8. ECF No. 86, Interr. No. 6-7
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: State the defects or complaints
made by any DTF official in regards to the digital audio/video
equipment used between January 2010 and February 2012 for
downloading digital evidence onto DVD for DTF investigation
(10-269). If the defects or complaints are set forth in any report,
log, list or other document produce the document(s).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is impermissibly
vague as to what is meant by “defects or complaints,” is overly
broad through the use of the phrase “any DTF official” and for
timeframe, and it seeks information that is not likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to FRCP 26(b)(1)
and FRCP 33(a).
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State any maintenance or warranty
work/replacements done for any digital audio/video equipment
used to store and download digital evidence to DVD between
January 2010 and February 2012 used for DTF investigation (10269). If the maintenance or warranty/replacements are set forth
in any reports, logs or other documents produce the document(s).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is overly broad and
unduly burdensome, and it seeks information that is not likely to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pursuant to FRCP
26(b)(1) and FRCP 33(a).
(ECF No. 196 at 21-22.)
The plaintiff requests that the Court compel the defendants to provide
the requested information. He asserts that the purpose of the interrogatories
is to substantiate Mark Hackett’s testimony that new equipment was in fact
- 15 -
purchased by the DTF in response to DVDs not being able to copy audio and
video recordings.
In response, the County Defendants contend that the
plaintiff’s request for information about repairs and the warranty of the DTF’s
digital recording system exceeds the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b).
The Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion as to these interrogatories
because the plaintiff has not shown how the requested information is relevant
to his claim.
9. ECF No. 86, Interr. Nos. 8-22
The plaintiff’s Interrogatories 8-12 ask the defendants to state whether
they take certain positions on issues related to disclosure of information to the
District Attorney, the availability of a citizen complaint procedure, and the
performance of pat searches and strip searches on confidential informants.
Interrogatories 13 through 22 ask the defendants to “state the factual basis
behind the general denials” of certain paragraph in the plaintiff’s complaint.
(ECF No. 196 at 23.)
In support of his motion to compel, the plaintiff requests that the Court
compel the defendants to respond to his contention interrogatories (8-12). He
requests that the Court compel the defendants to answer his interrogatories
openly and honestly, and without equivocation or subterfuge.
The
County
Defendants
assert
- 16 -
that
the
plaintiff’s
contention
interrogatories seek the defendants’ position on purely legal questions. They
also state that these interrogatories are vague, and incorporate many
erroneous assumptions. For example,
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State whether DTF officials/final
policy makers take the position that the custom, policy and/or
practice which allows DTF Lieutenants to use their own
perception of the utility of evidence collected to determine what
is or is not disclosed to the Brown County District Attorney
(hereinafter BCDA) and defense counsel for DTF suspects
satisfies the principles exemplified by Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), and if so, state the factual basis for that position.
RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is impermissibly
vague as to what is meant by “officials/final policy makers” and
“perception of the utility of evidence collected,” and it fails to
identify the specific “principles exemplified by Brady v.
Maryland” to which is refers. Further object on the basis that it
seeks the Defendants’ legal reasoning and theories regarding
Plaintiff’s contentions and/or presents a legal question regarding
defenses. Further, object on the basis that this Interrogatory
requests information protected by attorney work product
doctrine as defined in Wis. Stats. § 905.03(2) and pursuant to
FRE 501.
(ECF No. 196 at 24.)
The County defendants assert that the plaintiff fails to address the
substance of their objections to Interrogatories 13 through 22, which refer to
paragraphs from the plaintiff’s complaint and seek the facts underlying “the
general denials.” For example,
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State the factual basis behind the
general denials of paragraph #28 of plaintiff’s amended
complaint dated March 5, 2014.
- 17 -
RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is impermissibly
vague through the use of the phrase “general denials.” Multiple
defendants have filed answers to Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint and this Interrogatory fails to identify the answer(s)
to which plaintiff is referring.
(ECF No. 105-1 at 6-7.)
The Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel as to these
interrogatories because defendants’ objections were proper. See Menominee
Indian Tribe of Wis. v. Thompson, 943 F. Supp. 999, 1007 (W.D. Wis. 1996)
(“Contention interrogatories are designed to help defendants discern the basis
for the claims against them.”); see also Spacesaver Corp. v. Marvel Group.,
Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 659, 662 (W.D. Wis. 2009). Moreover, the plaintiff’s
motion to compel does not address the substance of the defendants’ objections
to the latter interrogatories.
10. ECF No. 86, Interr. No. 23
INTERROGATORY NO. 23: State the number of investigations
conducted for DTF investigation (10-269) irregardless [sic] of
whether the investigation resulted in charge referrals to the
BCDA. If the number of investigations are listed in any report,
log, list or other document produce the document(s).
RESPONSE: Objection. This Interrogatory is impermissibly
vague as to what is meant by “investigations conducted for DTF
investigation (10-269).” Without waiving this objection and in an
effort to be responsive, see Exhibits A and B, which contain the
entire file for investigation 10-269.
(ECF No. 196 at 27.)
The plaintiff contends the defendants have attempted to deceive him
- 18 -
and the Court by taking the positon that they would conceal information and
subject the plaintiff to prove that it exists.
The plaintiff refers to the
controlled transaction dated October 21, 2010, that was not referred to the
Brown County District Attorney.
He requests that the Court compel the
defendants to answer the interrogatory openly, honestly, and without
equivocation or subterfuge.
The County Defendants contend that the plaintiff’s concerns regarding
Interrogatory 23 are based on erroneous assumptions.
According to the
defendants, he fails to meet the substance of the defendants’ objection to
vagueness. Further, the defendants asserts that the plaintiff’s allegation that
they knew that Exhibits A and B did not contain case activity reports,
surveillance reports, investigative fund receipts, and controlled buy reports
dated October 21, 2010, is discussed above in relation to the previous
document production request.
The defendants state that no responsive
information exists with which to supplement the original response.
The Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this
interrogatory because the defendants have shown that they do not have
responsive information.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF
No. 186) is DENIED.
- 19 -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that County defendants resend the
plaintiff the disc described above at pages 3-4.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will reopen discovery for
the limited purpose of allowing the parties to conduct discovery related to the
three former Doe defendants: DTF Investigator Scanlan, Brad Brodbeck, and
Mary Lynn Young. The deadline for the completion of the limited discovery is
March 14, 2016, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is April 15,
2016.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Charles N. Clevert, Jr.
for HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
- 20 -
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?