Jones v. West et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 5/16/2019 DENYING 22 23 24 plaintiff's motions to compel discovery. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Jumar Jones at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (cb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ______________________________________________________________________________ JUMAR K. JONES, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-1687-pp KELI WEST, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (DKT. NOS. 22, 23, 24) ______________________________________________________________________________ Three months ago, the plaintiff filed three motions asking the court to compel the defendants to respond to discovery requests. Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 24. The court should have gotten to these motions more promptly—at this point, the parties have fully briefed the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court apologizes to all parties for its delay. The defendants responded to the plaintiff’s motions, asserting that the court should deny them because the plaintiff did not certify that he conferred with the defendants before he asked the court to get involved, and because they have responded. Id. Civil Local Rule 37 requires a party who files a motion to compel to include in his motion “a written certification . . . that, after the movant in good faith . . . conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action, the parties [we]re unable to reach an accord.” That’s a long way of saying that 1 before filing a motion to compel, a party first must discuss his dispute with the opposing party before asking the court to get involved. If the parties can’t work out the dispute and the party files a motion to compel, he must include proof in his motion that he tried to work things out with the opposing party first. The court will deny the plaintiff’s motions to compel because he failed to certify that he tried to resolve his dispute with the defendants before he filed the motions. And regardless of that fact, according to the defendants, they responded to the plaintiff’s discovery requests on the same day he filed his motion. Dkt. No. 27 at 2. The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motions to compel. Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 24. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16th day of May, 2019. BY THE COURT: __________________________________________ HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?