Wright v. Brito et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 6/8/2018 DENYING without prejudice 52 plaintiff's motion for order to view electronic monitor camera footage. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Karl Wright at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
KARL CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-64-pp

RAFAEL BRITO, et al.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VIEW ELECTRONIC
MONITOR CAMERA FOOTAGE (DKT. NO. 52)
______________________________________________________________________________
Karl Christopher Wright, III is representing himself in this lawsuit. The
deadline for the parties to complete discovery was April 20, 2018, and the
deadline for filing summary judgment motions was May 21, 2018. Both the
plaintiff and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the May
21, 2018 deadline date. Dkt. Nos. 38 and 50. A few days after he filed his
motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a letter, indicating that he
would like to file a motion to view electronic monitor camera footage. Dkt. No.
52. The plaintiff asked to look at footage from the camera on pod 4D for May 8,
2016, between 11:15 AM and 2:45 PM; he wants to see if officers opened his
cell door, ran into his room, and attacked him. Id.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants beat and
sodomized him in his cell; he narrowed down the time of the alleged assault to
sometime between May 4, 2016 and May 17, 2016. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. In their
motion for summary judgment, the defendants stated that May 8, 2016 was
the only day the two defendants worked together during that period. Dkt. No.
1

40 at 4-5. It seems, then, that the plaintiff has reviewed the defendants’
summary judgment motion, and is now asking to conduct further discovery on
the factual assertions the defendants have made in connection with that
motion.
The court issued the original scheduling order on October 17, 2017,
giving the parties four months—until February 19, 2018—to conduct discovery.
Dkt. No. 25. On February 12, 2018, at the request of the defendants, the court
extended the discovery deadline to April 20, 2018. The plaintiff had six months
to ask the defendants for any evidence he needed, including video footage. The
plaintiff does not state in his motion whether he asked the defendants for any
video footage during the six-month discovery period. If he did not request video
footage during the discovery period, he does not explain why he did not do so.
The plaintiff’s request comes too late, and without explanation as to why he did
not make the request sooner. The court will deny his motion without prejudice.
If the plaintiff has evidence that the defendants somehow prevented him from
obtaining video footage during discovery, the plaintiff may renew his motion
and provide the court with that evidence.
The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff's motion for an
order to view electronic monitor camera footage. Dkt. No. 52.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
2