Winston v. Clark et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/30/2017 DENYING 75 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Michael L. Winston at Columbia Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHAEL L. WINSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-CV-1398-JPS

DAVID A. CLARK,
KEONA GARTH-DICKENS,
JEFFREY ANDRYKOWSKI, LT. REEVES,
LT. RECKLESS, BRANDON LAWLER,
JOSHUA MIKULECKY, D. ADAMS,
D. BLUE, OFFICER BROOKS,
OFFICER SPITTLEMEISTER,
OFFICER COPELAND, D. BRODSKY,
CHRISTINE BECKER, DOROTHY GREER,
FREDERICK PORLUCOS, MAI XIONG,
and TERRI GOUDY

ORDER

Defendants.
On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery
responses from the defendants. (Docket #75). The defendants responded on
January 12, 2017. (Docket #86). The plaintiff has not offered a reply. For the
reasons stated below, the motion must be denied.
The plaintiff seeks to compel responses to four sets of requests. First
are requests for production of documents from August 25, 2016. There, the
plaintiff asked for various reports from the Milwaukee County Jail’s (“Jail”)
health services administrator for 2012 to 2016. (Docket #86 at 2).1 The
defendants have interposed two valid objections. First, the plaintiff’s claims
stem from 2012 and 2013, and so a request for reports from a later time

1

The requests the plaintiff seeks to compel were not attached to his motion.
The Court is left to cite the defendant’s recitation of those requests in its response.

period is not properly limited. Second, even as to the timely reports, the
defendants aver that the documents are not in their possession. The
defendants informed the plaintiff of this and even attempted to retrieve them
from the entity that possesses them, to no avail. They need not do any more
to assist the plaintiff in his lawsuit against them.
The second subject request is dated November 9, 2016. It seeks logs
identifying the officers who worked on the “special needs 2nd floor” for the
time periods of July 28, 2013 to August 28, 2013 and September 13, 2013 to
December 2, 2013. Id. at 3. The defendants again objected that these requests
exceed the time span of the events of the complaint. In any event, the
requests are too broad; they are not tailored to request the identities of the
officers who worked with the plaintiff himself during his stay at the Jail or in
the “special needs” area. The defendants note that those logs relevant to him
have already been produced.
The third request, from September 30, 2016, asked for logs of the
plaintiff’s treatment for MRSA in the Jail. Id. at 4. The plaintiff asserts that
some of the logs are missing. (Docket #76 at 3-4). He states that they will
establish which of the defendants worked during his MRSA treatments and
whether they directed anyone to clean his cell. Id. at 4. The defendants state
that they have produced the logs for the time period in which the plaintiff
was receiving treatment, and have in fact included some beyond that time.
To the extent they did not produce other logs based on a time objection, it
was again proper in light of the plaintiff’s stated reason for seeking the logs.
He wanted to know which officers worked during his treatments and what
actions they took (or did not take) with regard to his cell, and he has been
provided that information.

Page 2 of 3

The fourth and final issue involves a discovery response from the
defendants referencing an “Exhibit B.” (Docket #86 at 4-5). The defendants
inadvertently sent the plaintiff the wrong exhibit but have now corrected the
mistake. In sum, the plaintiff has either been provided all of the discovery
responses he sought or the responses were curtailed subject to a valid
objection. The motion to compel must, therefore, be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket #75)
be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3