Jackson v. Graves

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 4/19/2016 DENYING 36 Motion to Compel. (cc: all counsel and copy sent to the plaintiff by US Mail on 4/20/2016.) (kgw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ANDRE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-1206-pp

DAVID GRAVES, Walworth County Sheriff, and
WALWORTH COUNTY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 36)
______________________________________________________________________________
On April 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendants to
provide further answers to his interrogatories. Dkt. No. 36. The plaintiff states
that the defendants objected to his interrogatories on the grounds that they
exceeded the scope of discovery, were vague, were overbroad, were
disproportional, and sought either privileged information or work product. Id.
He responds that those objections and responses to his interrogatories “are
inappropriate and wrongly characterize the information sought.” Id. at 2. He
argues that his interrogatories are relevant, probative, and germane to the
issues in his case. Id. He further argues that the requested information is
necessary to continue to achieve meaningful pretrial preparation. Id.
The court must deny the plaintiff’s motion to compel, because he has not
complied with the federal and local rules. The motion does not contain (or have
attached to it) a certification that the plaintiff conferred or attempted to confer

1

with the defendants before filing his motion. Both Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(a)(1) and Civil Local Rule 37 require such a certification.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party is permitted to file a
motion to compel discovery where another party fails to respond to
interrogatories or requests for production of documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(3)(B)(iii) and (iv). The movant “must include a certification that the
movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or
party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without
court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Additionally, Civil Local Rule 37 requires
the movant to “recite the date and time of the conference or conferences and
the names of all parties participating in the conference or conferences.” A
motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37(a) is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. EEOC v. Klockner H & K Machines, Inc., 168
F.R.D. 233, 235 (E.D. Wis. 1996) (citation omitted).
While the court realizes that incarcerated plaintiffs cannot call opposing
counsel whenever they like, or meet with opposing counsel in person, inmates
can communicate with opposing counsel in writing and try to work out the
parties’ differences as to discovery. The plaintiff’s motion does not include a
certification indicating whether he tried to work out his concerns with defense
counsel by mail, nor does it state the dates or times of his communication

2

efforts, or who (if anyone) he communicated with.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 36.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of April, 2016.

3