Bergeron-Davila v. Schmaling et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/2/2017: DENYING 60 Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena and Sanctions; and DENYING 62 , 63 and 73 Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Discovery from Defendants. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Raymond J. Bergeron Davila at Columbia Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RAYMOND J. BERGERON DAVILA,

v.

Plaintiff,

CHRISTOPHER SCHMALING,
DOUGLAS WEARING, LT.
BRADLEY FRIEND, C.O. JOSEPH
ZIMMER, and JOHN DOES

Case No. 16-CV-1665-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
Four motions by Plaintiff are pending before the Court. The first is
captioned a motion to subpoena documents and sanction Defendants.
(Docket #60). Plaintiff requests that the Court order Plaintiff’s public
defender in state criminal proceedings, Melissa Frost (“Frost”), to return
some documents to him. Id. Plaintiff suggests that Defendants have
colluded with Frost to keep those materials from him. Id. In fact, he states
that Frost told him that Defendants paid her to hold the documents. Id.
Defendants deny this and their counsel avers that she has never met Frost.
(Docket #65). The Court must deny both parts of Plaintiff’s motion. Frost is
a non-party to this action and thus the Court cannot directly order her to do
anything. Further, the Court does not issue subpoenas of its own accord.
Finally, nothing other than Plaintiff’s declaration (containing hearsay
statements from Frost) supports any finding of wrongdoing by Defendants,
and this is insufficient to warrant sanctions.
The final three motions are motions to compel. (Docket #62, #63, and
#73). Each must be denied for two reasons. First, none reflect any attempt

to comply with Civil Local Rule 37, which requires good faith efforts to
resolve discovery disputes prior to seeking Court intervention, and a
certification to that effect in any discovery motion. See Civil L. R. 37. Second,
even if Plaintiff’s motions complied with Civil Local Rule 37, they are
meritless in substance. Plaintiff’s discovery requests were, at best, vague
and difficult to understand. See, e.g., (Docket #62-1 at 2) (Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 2: “How are the 2d and 3d suicide pods and its other (cells
11-18) hours conducted describing it’s operations how hours are conducted
– provided to the inmates thereat those locations.”). Defendants
nevertheless tried to provide Plaintiff with ample responsive material. See,
e.g., id. (Defendants’ Response to Interrogatory No. 2: “Objection,
Interrogatory No. 2 is unclear, vague and ambiguous. Subject to and
without waiving any objections, for safety and security hours out for cells
19 and 20 are random. As to the remainder of 2D and 3D, there is no
consistency in the classification of inmates housed in these units and,
therefore, the timeline for each varies. The 2D and 3D schedule is also
dependent on visitor schedules.”). Plaintiff’s rambling motions simply
disagree with those responses, rather than actually raising legal grounds
for finding the responses insufficient.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena and for
sanctions (Docket #60) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to compel
(Docket #62, #63, and #73) be and the same are hereby DENIED.

Page 2 of 3

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 2nd day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

__________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3