Doe v. County of Milwaukee et al

Filing 75

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on 10/2/2015. 57 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Response GRANTED; by 10/9/2015 Thicklen MUST PROVIDE Doe with responses to interrogatories and requests for production. 62 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Disclosure GRANTED; by 10/9/2015 Thicklen MUST PROVIDE Doe with complete Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures. 64 Defendants' MOTION to Restrict Documents GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: ECF Document Nos. 67, 68, 68-1, 68-3, 68-4, 68-5, 69, 69-1 to be SEALED; Document Nos. 65, 66, 68-2, 70, 70-1, 70-2, 71, 72, 73 to be UNSEALED. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 14-C-200

COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE;
DAVID A. CLARKE, JR.;
individually and in his official capacity,
XAVIER D. THICKLEN;
and JOHN and JANE DOE, unknown
Milwaukee County Jail employees and Officers;
Defendants,
and
WISCONSIN COUNTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Intervenor.

DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Doe”) filed two expedited non-dispositive
motions to compel pursuant to Civil L.R. 7(h).
The first motion seeks an order directing Defendant Xavier D.
Thicklen (“Thicklen”) to respond to her first set of interrogatories and
requests for production within seven days.

(ECF No. 57.)

The second

motion seeks to compel Thicklen to provide complete Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures. (ECF No. 62.)
Although the time for Thicklen to file responses to Doe’s motions has
passed, he has not filed responses; nor is there any indication that he has
responded to the subject discovery requests/obligations.
Interrogatories and Request for Production
Doe “issued” her first set of interrogatories and requests for
production to Thicklen on April 14, 2015. Thicklen made several requests
for extensions of time to respond, relying in part on difficulties presented
because he does not live in Wisconsin. Doe agreed. However, as of August
14, 2015, when no responses had been provided after the multiple agreed
extensions, Doe made an email request for the responses by August 18,
indicating that if they were not received she would file a motion. Doe
received no response to the email.
On August 19, Thicklen’s counsel advised that he had not been able
to complete the discovery responses because of difficulties reaching
Thicklen—who is apparently only available by phone in the evening.
Counsel stated he had emailed Thicklen repeatedly and believed he would
be able to complete the responses in the next few days. Doe indicates that
her attorney and Thicklen’s attorney have amicably discussed the matter
-2-

but have been unable to resolve the issue.
Doe’s filings establish that for about four months she worked with
opposing counsel in an attempt to obtain the responses to her discovery
requests without court involvement. She has shown a good faith attempt
to resolve the discovery dispute.
requests is long overdue.

Thicklen’s response to her discovery

Therefore, Doe’s motion is granted; Thicklen

must provide Doe with the responses no later than October 9, 2015.
Complete Rule 26(a) Disclosures
Doe, who has shown a good faith effort to resolve this dispute, seeks
an order compelling Thicklen to provide complete initial disclosures in
compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g). Given
Thicklen’s failure to respond to the motion and his overdue obligations to
provide initial disclosures, he must provide Doe with supplemented
disclosures that state (1) the address and phone number “if known” for
each individual whose name was included in his initial disclosures and (2)
the categories of information on which each witness may offer testimony.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). These disclosures must be provided by October
9, 2015. If Thicklen fails to comply with this Decision and Order, the Court
will consider additional sanctions, including an order barring Thicklen
from calling any witness at trial for whom he has not provided a proper
-3-

disclosure.
Motion to Seal
Also pending is the motion to seal documents filed on September 29,
2015,1 by Defendants Milwaukee County and Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr.
(the “County Defendants”). (ECF No. 64.) The grounds for sealing them
are that they contain Doe’s name. The County Defendants’ motion to seal
was filed one day after amended Gen. L. R. 79(d) (E.D. Wis.) became
effective.
The Court allowed Doe to proceed under a pseudonym because of the
nature of the allegations in this case—repeated sexual assaults committed
by Thicklen, who was then employed as a Milwaukee County Jail
correctional officer, while she was a pre-trial detainee at the jail, and the
threat of humiliation and retaliation for bringing this action, particularly
given the media attention to the case. See Doe v. City of Chi., 360 F.3d 667,
669 (7th Cir. 2004). At this juncture, based on the foregoing and having
considered Doe’s current circumstances; the interests of the Defendants
who know Doe’s true identity; and the public’s interest in open judicial
proceedings, including knowing the parties’ names; the Court concludes

1 The Court has corrected a typographic error—the motion actually states the
documents were filed September 2, 2015.

-4-

that there is good cause to continue to keep Doe’s name confidential. See
id.
However, by the stated deadline, the County Defendants must file
redacted versions of the sealed documents which redact Doe’s name. See
Gen. L.R. 79(d)(2). (The redacted versions should have been filed with the
motion.) Furthermore, the County Defendants must make sure that the
redacted versions comply with requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a).
The following documents include Doe’s name, and therefore the
motion to seal is granted as to them:
The County Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact in Support of
their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67);
The Declaration of Charles Bohl (“Bohl”) and attached Exhibits A, C,
D and E (ECF Nos. 68, 68-1, 68-3, 68-4, 68-5);
The Declaration of Captain Beverly Kay Williams and attached
Exhibit A (ECF Nos. 69, 69-1);
The following documents do not refer to Doe by her name, and
therefore the County Defendants’ motion to seal is denied as to them:
The County Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 65);
The County Defendants’ Brief in Support of their Motion for Partial
-5-

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66);
Exhibit B to the Bohl Declaration (ECF No. 68-2);
The Declaration of Kevin Nyklewicz and attached Exhibits A and B
(ECF Nos. 70, 70-1, 70-2);
The Declaration of Deputy Sheriff Felicia McCoy-Maten (ECF No.
71)
The Declaration of Deputy Sheriff Pamela Terrell (ECF No. 72); and
The Declaration of Deputy Sheriff Anne Varick (ECF No. 73).
The Clerk of Court will be directed to file those documents in the public
record. See Gen. L.R. 79(d)(2).
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Doe’s expedited non-dispositive motion to compel Thicklen to
respond to her first set of interrogatories and requests for production (ECF
No. 57) is GRANTED. Thicklen MUST PROVIDE Doe with responses to
such interrogatories and requests for production no later than October
9, 2015.
Doe’s expedited non-dispositive motion to compel Thicklen to provide
complete Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED. Thicklen
MUST PROVIDE Doe with complete Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures no later
-6-

than October 9, 2015.
The County Defendants’ motion to seal documents (ECF No. 64) is
GRANTED AS TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:
The County Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact in Support of
their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 67);
The Bohl Declaration and attached Exhibits A, C, D and E (ECF
Nos. 68, 68-1, 68-3, 68-4, 68-5);
The Declaration of Captain Beverly Kay Williams and attached
Exhibit A (ECF Nos. 69, 69-1);
As to the foregoing documents, the County Defendants MUST FILE
redacted versions consistent with this Decision and Order no later than
October 9, 2015;
The County Defendants motion to seal (ECF No. 64) is DENIED AS
TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, and the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED TO UNSEAL them:
The County Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 65);
The County Defendants’ Brief in Support of their Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 66);
Exhibit B to the Bohl Declaration (ECF No. 68-2);
-7-

The Declaration of Kevin Nyklewicz and attached Exhibits A and B
(ECF Nos. 70, 70-1, 70-2);
The Declaration of Deputy Sheriff Felicia McCoy-Maten (ECF No.
71);
The Declaration of Deputy Sheriff Pamela Terrell (ECF No. 72); and
The Declaration of Deputy Sheriff Anne Varick (ECF No. 73).
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of October, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-8-