Earl v. Foster et al
Filing
78
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 5/23/2016. 60 Plaintiff's MOTION to compel discovery DENIED. Defendants to file response to 74 Plaintiff's MOTION to substitute defendant within 7 days; Plaintiff to file reply within 7 days of receiving Defendants' response. 76 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time GRANTED; deadline for response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment extended 30 days. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Daryise Earl at Green Bay Correctional Institution)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DARYISE L. EARL,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 15-CV-282
BRIAN FOSTER, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
First, on April 29, 2016, the Court ordered the defendants to submit
the termination file and performance evaluations for defendant Richard Karl
for in camera review so that the Court could determine whether those
documents should be produced to the plaintiff in response to his discovery
requests. After reviewing the documents, the Court agrees with the
defendants’ assessment that these documents are not relevant to the
plaintiff’s allegations. In addition, the Court agrees that providing these
documents to the plaintiff could pose a security risk.
As acknowledged by the defendants, the documents may be relevant to
Mr. Karl’s credibility; however, the parties’ credibility is not appropriately
considered at summary judgment. As such, there is not a current need for the
plaintiff to access these documents. In light of the potential security risk, the
Court concludes that the documents should not be provided to the plaintiff
until such time as is necessary. If the plaintiff’s claims against Mr. Karl
survive summary judgment and proceed to trial, the plaintiff may renew his
request to the defendants for these documents. The parties can decide at that
time the best way to provide the plaintiff with access to the documents while
limiting the security concerns.
Second, on May 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to substitute Mary
Alsteen for the unidentified Doe defendant in his complaint. The Court notes
that discovery is now closed and that the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on April 29, 2016. As a result, before deciding whether to
grant the plaintiff’s motion, the Court would like a response from the
defendants. In their response, the defendants should first state whether they
oppose the plaintiff’s motion. If they do not oppose his motion, they should
advise the Court on their scheduling preferences (assuming, of course, the
proposed defendant will also be represented by defendants’ counsel). The
Court disfavors multiple tracks of litigation in a single case and would prefer,
for the sake of efficiency, to have all the defendants on the same schedule.
The defendants shall file their response within seven days of this order.
Once the defendants have responded, the plaintiff shall file a reply within
seven days, addressing the defendants’ arguments and offering his own
thoughts on the scheduling of discovery and for the filing of dispositive
motions as it relates to the proposed defendant.
-2-
Third, on May 19, 2016, the plaintiff requested an extension of time to
respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court grants
his request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (ECF
No. 60) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall file a
response to the plaintiff’s motion to substitute a defendant (ECF No. 74)
within seven days of this order.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file a reply addressing
the topics set forth in this decision within seven days of receiving the
defendants’ response.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a thirtyday extension of the deadline by which he must respond to the defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) is GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of May, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?