Oswald v. Pollard et al

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/5/2017. 65 Plaintiff's MOTION to serve discovery requests and responses on defendants by mailing them to the court DENIED. Plaintiff need not mail to defendants discovery requests he sent to the court b etween 6/16/2017 and 6/26/2017; defendants to consider service to have been completed on the dates those requests were docketed. 78 79 Plaintiff's MOTIONS to Produce Documents DENIED. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Daniel Oswald at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DANIEL PERRY OSWALD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-991-pp

JEFFREY MANLOVE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO MAIL
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND RESPONES TO THE COURT INSTEAD OF TO
THE DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL (DKT NO. 65), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (DKT. NO. 78), AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS (DKT. NO. 79)
______________________________________________________________________________
On June 16, 2017, the court received from the plaintiff a document he
titled, “Plaintiff’s Motion to Have the Defendants Produce all Documents and
Information in Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1),
26(a)(2) and 26(a)(3).” Dkt. No. 65. For the most part, this document contains
the plaintiff’s requests that the defendants produce information and
documents (discovery).
In the final paragraph, however, the plaintiff requests that the court
allow him to send only one copy of any document (motions, requests, or other
filings) to the court, which he proposes the court will then distribute to the
defendants. Id. at ¶5. The plaintiff explains that he is indigent, and that he
does not have the money to mail copies directly to the defendants. Id. at 2.

1

In the court’s February 2, 2017 scheduling order, the court instructed
the plaintiff to send all correspondence and case filings to the court. Dkt. No.
37. The court explained that, because the clerk of court will electronically scan
and enter each filing on the docket, the plaintiff need not mail copies to the
defendants. All defendants will be served electronically through the court’s
electronic case filing system. So there is no need for the plaintiff to ask the
court for permission to file motions, requests and other pleadings with the
court—that already is the procedure that the court uses.
Under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5(d)(1), the parties must serve discovery requests
and responses directly on the opposing party, and must not file them with the
court unless and until a party wishes to use them to support a motion or other
pleading, or unless the court orders a party to file them. The plaintiff states
that he is indigent, which is why he wants to send all documents (including
discovery requests and responses) to the court. The plaintiff currently is
incarcerated at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution, which does not
participate in the court’s E-Filing Program. This means that the plaintiff must
pay postage to mail discovery requests and responses to the court. Mailing
discovery requests and responses to the defendants (all of whom are
represented by one lawyer) will cost the same as mailing discovery requests
and responses to the court. The plaintiff should use his postage money to mail
discovery requests, and discovery responses, to the defendants. He should not
send those to the court at all.

2

Perhaps the plaintiff misunderstood the court’s scheduling order and
believed that he needed to mail a copy of his discovery requests and responses
to both the court and the defendants’ counsel. That is not the case: discovery
requests and responses should be mailed only to the defendants’ counsel. The
court does not need copies of discovery requests and responses, because the
rules contemplate that the parties will engage in discovery without the court’s
involvement.
Sending discovery requests and responses to the court bogs down the
court, because the court must read each document to determine whether the
plaintiff is asking the court to do something. For example, on June 23, 2017,
the court received from the plaintiff two documents titled, “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Production of Documents.” Dkt. No. 78. These filings asked the defendants to
produce documents. They did not ask the court to do anything, yet the court
had to review each filing and determine what it was that the plaintiff was
asking it to do. In addition, because the plaintiff styled the documents as
motions, the court is required to rule on them, but because the documents
don’t ask the court to do anything, there is nothing for the court to rule on. The
court will deny both “motions.”
The plaintiff filed twenty-one discovery related documents between June
16 and June 26, 2017. None of those should have been filed with the court.
The court will not require the plaintiff to re-mail these documents to the
defendants’ counsel; going forward, however, the plaintiff must comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1) and mail all of his discovery requests and responses
3

directly to the defendants’ counsel. The plaintiff should file discovery requests
or responses with the court only if they are relevant to a motion or a response
to a motion asking the court to do something.
If at some point, the plaintiff is transferred to an institution that
participates in the E-Filing Program, the plaintiff may renew his request that
he be allowed to serve his discovery requests and responses on the defendants
by submitting those documents to the court (the documents will then be
distributed to the defendants via the court’s electronic case filing system).
In short, the court DENIES the plaintiff’s request to serve his discovery
requests and responses on the defendants by mailing such requests and
responses to the court. Dkt. No. 65. The court ORDERS that the plaintiff need
not mail to the defendants’ counsel the discovery requests he sent to the court
between June 16 and June 26, 2017. The court ORDERS that the defendants
should consider service to have been completed on the dates those requests
were docketed. If the defendants need additional time to respond, the court
expects that the parties will work together in good faith to agree to an
extension.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motions to produce documents, because
the plaintiff does not ask the court for any relief. Dkt. Nos. 78 and 79.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 5th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
4