DaSilva v. Rymarkiewicz et al

Filing 42

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's 40 motion for an order compelling discovery is denied. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff) (asc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANDERSON R. DaSILVA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-812

CAPTAIN RYMARKIEWICZ, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Anderson DaSilva, a Wisconsin state prisoner, filed a “Motion for
an Order Compelling Discovery.” (ECF No. 40.) He asks the court to order defendants
to respond to his requests for production seeking films and photographs. The court will
deny the motion because DaSilva failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Civil Local Rules for this district.
Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits the court to compel
discovery, the party seeking such discovery must complete several steps before court
intervention is appropriate. First, the party seeking discovery must direct his discovery
requests to the opposing party, not to the court.

DaSilva filed his “Request for

Production of Documents” with the court on June 17, 2015 (which he was not required

to do), but it is unclear whether he also served the requests on defendants as required
by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, and 34. The court reminds DaSilva that,
ideally, discovery should proceed without the court’s involvement; filing discovery
requests with the court (as opposed to serving the requests directly upon the
defendants) will not trigger the defendants’ obligation to respond.
If a party serves discovery on an opposing party and the opposing party fails to
timely or sufficiently respond, the requesting party must then confer with the opposing
party (by letter is acceptable) and attempt to resolve any dispute regarding the
responding party’s responses. Civ. L.R. 37 (E.D. Wis.). If the requesting party is still
unable to obtain the information sought, he may then file a motion to compel discovery
with the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).
In the event it is necessary to file a motion to compel with the court, the moving
party must include in his motion to compel a written certification as set forth in Civil
Local Rule 37. Specifically, he should explain that he conferred or attempted to confer
in good faith with the opposing party in an effort to obtain the discovery without court
action; however, the parties were unable to resolve their dispute. Civ. L.R. 37. The
statement must recite the date the movant conferred or attempted to confer with the
opposing party as well as the names of who the movant contacted in an attempt to
reach a resolution. A detailed explanation of the party’s dispute will also assist the
court in making its decision.

2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff’s
motion for an order compelling discovery (ECF No. 40) is denied.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 28th day of July, 2015.

WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

3