Brown v. Duyoung et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/17/2017. 31 Plaintiff's MOTION for entry of default DENIED. 33 Plaintiff's MOTION for summary judgment DENIED. 32 Defendant's MOTION for extension of time to conduct discovery GRANTED; discovery now due 12/15/2017, dispositive motions now due 1/16/2018. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Ennis Lee Brown at Waupun Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ENNIS LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-1463-pp

DR. RICKY SEABUL and
JANE DOE,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (DKT.
NO. 31), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(DKT. NO. 33), AND GRANTING DEFENDANT RICKY SEABULL’s MOTION
FOR EXTENSION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY (DKT. NO. 32)
______________________________________________________________________________
This court screened the plaintiff’s complaint, permitting him to proceed
on his Eighth Amendment medical claim against Defendant Ricky Seabul and
to file an amended complaint that clarified his claims against another thennamed defendant, Dr. Thomas Williams. Dkt. No. 8. The plaintiff did not file an
amended complaint, so the Marshals Service served the plaintiff’s original
complaint on Seabul on March 17, 2017, and the court dismissed Williams
from the case. Dkt. No. 26. On May 26, 2017, Seabul filed his answer (dkt. no.
21), and on July 18, 2017, this court issued a scheduling order (dkt. no. 26).
The scheduling order set a discovery deadline of November 17, 2017 and a
dispositive motions deadline of December 22, 2017. Dkt. No. 26 at 4.
Defendant Seabul now has moved to extend the deadline to complete
discovery. Dkt. No. 32. The plaintiff has filed a motion for entry of default (dkt.
1

no. 31) and a motion which he calls a motion for summary judgment, but
which also asks the court to grant him a default judgment, dkt. no. 33.
1.

Defendant Seabul’s Motion for an Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 32)

Seabul states that the plaintiff has not provided a signed release for his
medical records. Dkt. No. 32 at 1. The court received this motion from Seabul
on October 3, 2017. Seven days later, the court received a motion from the
plaintiff, but it did not mention Seabul’s motion or the medical authorization
form. Dkt. No. 33. The court first notes that because the plaintiff has made a
claim against the defendants based on his medical condition, the defendants
have the right to obtain and review his medical records. Under the rules
governing discovery, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a plaintiff believes that a discovery request is improper, or
that some or all of the information covered by the request is protected under
the rules governing discovery, see, e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), (c), he may file
an appropriate motion. The court advises the plaintiff that if he doesn’t respond
to a proper discovery request, including a request to sign a release for medical
records, the court could impose sanctions, including the dismissal of his case.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, see also Jacobs v. Frank, 349 F. App’x 106 (7th Cir.
2009).
Even if the plaintiff signed and returned the form as soon as he received
this order, that would not give Seabul adequate time to obtain, review, and
complete discovery on the records before the November 17, 2017 discovery
2

deadline or the December 22, 2017 dispositive motions deadline. The court
finds that defendant Seabul has established good cause for the court to grant
his request for an extension of those deadlines. The court will grant Seabul’s
motion, and will order that the parties shall serve all discovery demands by a
date early enough to allow the completion of discovery by the end of the day on
December 15, 2017. The court will extend the deadline for filing dispositive
motions to January 16, 2018.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of Default (Dkt. No. 31) and for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 33)

In both his motion for default judgment and his motion for “summary”
judgment, the plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a default judgment because
Seabul did not timely answer the complaint. Dkt Nos. 31, 33. The plaintiff
raised an identical argument in his earlier motions for entry of default (dkt. no.
11) and for summary judgment (dkt. no. 22), both of which the court denied in
its scheduling order (dkt. no. 26). As the court indicated in the scheduling
order, Seabul timely filed his answer within sixty days of the Marshal’s Service
effectuating service. The delay between the date this court issued its screening
order and the date the Marshal served Seabul is the result of the court giving
the plaintiff time to amend his complaint, so that the Marshal could serve all
defendants at once. Dkt. No. 23 at 1-3. The court will deny the plaintiff’s most
recent motions for the same reasons it denied his earlier ones.
3.

Conclusion

The court GRANTS Seabul’s motion for extension of time to conduct
discovery. Dkt. No. 32. The court ORDERS that the parties shall serve
3

discovery requests by a date early enough to allow completion of discovery by
the end of the day on December 15, 2017. The court ORDERS that the
deadline for parties to file dispositive motions is EXTENDED to the end of the
day on January 16, 2018.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Dkt. No. 31)
and his motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

4