Mitchell v. Sheboygan County Detention Center et al

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Judge J. P. Stadtmueller on 12/8/2016 DENYING 84 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Discovery and Inspection. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kevin Brian Mitchell at New Lisbon Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KEVIN BRIAN MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-CV-1520-JPS

SGT. MARK RICHTER, SGT. FENN,
C.O. HANSEN, C.O. JOHNSON,
C.O. IVERSON, C.O. KERUGER,
DEPUTY WALTER, DR. KAREN BUTLER,
NURSE TRACY, NURSE BRENDA,
NURSE LISA, NURSE NICK, and
CAPT. BRINKMAN,

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at New Lisbon Correctional Institution,
filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights
were violated. (Docket #44). This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s
motion for extension of time for discovery and inspection. (Docket #84).
In this motion, Plaintiff makes two arguments. First, he contends that
Defendants have failed to adequately respond to several of his discovery
requests. Id. at 1. He does not seek any action by the Court, however, see id.
at 1–2, and the Court would in any event deny a request to compel further
responses to the discovery requests he identified. Plaintiff failed to provide
the allegedly inadequate discovery responses and instead conclusorily
asserts that they were insufficient. Without a complete record, the Court has
no way to assess this claim. Moreover, because Plaintiff filed his discovery
requests with the Court (Docket #82), the Court was able to review the
requests at issue here. That review shows that there could be several

reasonable bases on which Defendants might decline to respond to Plaintiff’s
requests. As such, the Court cannot assume that their failure to respond—if
they in fact failed to respond—was improper. See MSTG, Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, No. 08 C 7411, 2011 WL 221771, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2011) (the
initial burden in a motion to compel “rests with the party seeking discovery
to explain why the opposing party’s responses are inadequate”) (citing
Whitlow v. Martin, 259 F.R.D. 349, 356 (C.D. Ill. 2009)). Additionally, Plaintiff
failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Civil Local Rule
37, both of which require a party seeking to compel discovery responses to
include in such a motion a certification that the party has made a good-faith
but unsuccessful effort to confer with his opponent in an attempt to resolve
the discovery dispute without court involvement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1);
Civ. L. R. 37. For these reasons, even if Plaintiff had properly presented a
motion to compel further discovery responses, it would be denied.
Second, Plaintiff complains that Defendants provided him video discs
in response to his discovery requests that he cannot play using equipment
available to him at New Lisbon Correctional Institution. (Docket #84 at 1–2).
Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery deadline to permit
Defendants to provide compatible video discs. Id. at 2. Defendants filed a
response to the motion on December 7, 2016, noting that after receiving
Plaintiff’s motion, they immediately reached out to the correctional
institution in order to work with Plaintiff and the institution to provide the
video in a usable format. (Docket #86). Because of these efforts are
proceeding expeditiously, the Court sees no need to extend the discovery
deadline further. The parties have already been granted an extension of that
deadline and the Court warned at that time that it would not grant any
additional extensions. (Docket #83 at 1–2). Moreover, Plaintiff does not say
Page 2 of 3

how long an extension he seeks. As a result, the request for an extension of
the discovery period will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of discovery and
inspection (Docket #84) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of December, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3