Hawkins v. Strahota et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/11/16 granting defendants motion for an extension of time 23 . If a party chooses to file a dispositive motion, it must do so by June 30, 2016. Further ordering that plaintiffs motion to compel 24 is DENIED. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________
MARCUS D. HAWKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-872

WILLIAM POLLARD, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Marcus D. Hawkins, who is representing himself and currently incarcerated at
Waupun Correctional Institution, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. On
March 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion requesting that I extend the deadline for filing
dispositive motions to June 30, 2016. (Docket #23.) Defendants’ counsel explains that
she has a heavy caseload during the next two months, including having to prepare for
five other summary judgment motions and three federal jury trials. I find defendants’
request and the basis for that request to be reasonable, so I will grant defendants’
motion.
Plaintiff also filed a motion. He asks that I compel defendants to respond to his
second set of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. (Docket
#24.) Civil Local Rule 37 requires that all motions to compel disclosure or discovery be
accompanied by a written certification from the movant that he has in good faith
unsuccessfully attempted to confer with the opposing party in order to resolve the
discovery dispute without the court's involvement. This requirement saves the court and

parties time and money because parties can often reach a compromise informally
without the delay and expense of motion practice.
Plaintiff includes a certification; however, he misunderstands the requirement.
Plaintiff points to the requests themselves as his good faith effort to resolve the dispute.
That is not correct. The “dispute” did not arise until after defendants responded to
plaintiff’s discovery requests and plaintiff was dissatisfied with those responses.
Because plaintiff did not confer with defendants after they responded, plaintiff has not
satisfied the requirements of this rule.
I will deny plaintiff’s motion to compel at this time. I encourage the parties to try to
reach a compromise and resolve these disputes (or at least narrow them) without my
involvement. If they are unable to do so, plaintiff may refile his motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for an extension of time
(Docket #23) is GRANTED. If a party chooses to file a dispositive motion, it must do so
by June 30, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket #24) is
DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of March, 2016.

s/ Lynn Adelman
______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2