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)

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