Adell v. Hepp et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 9/6/2017 DENYING 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARK ANTHONY ADELL,

v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-CV-267-JPS

RANDALL HEPP, CHRIS KRUEGER,
JOHN MAGGIONCALDA, LT. JOHN
CONGDON, MARK SCHOMISCH,
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, and JON LITSCHER,

ORDER

Defendants.
On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery
responses from Defendants. (Docket #23). He says he requested documents
from Defendants, though he does not provide a copy of his requests or even
explain what types of documents he seeks. Id. All he says about the requests
is that Defendants have not responded to them within the time period
permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
The Court must deny the motion, as it is premature. Before seeking
Court intervention into discovery matters, Plaintiff must first serve
discovery requests on Defendants consistent with the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Defendants do not appropriately
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff must then make goodfaith efforts to confer with Defendants’ counsel to resolve the matter
without involving the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Civ. L. R. 37. If
those efforts fail, then and only then may Plaintiff file a motion to compel
discovery responses with the Court. See Ross v. Board of Regents of Univ. of

Wis. Sys., No. 08–CV–230, 2008 WL 5129941, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2008);
Williams v. Frank, No. 06C1051, 2007 WL 1217358, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 19,
2007).
And, if he should file such a motion in the future, Plaintiff is warned
that he must do more than simply reference Defendants’ failure to respond
to a discovery request. Rather, he must provide evidence regarding the
nature of the request at issue, as well as Defendants’ response thereto (if
any), and provide argument and citation to authority as to why the motion
to compel should be granted. Unfortunately, none of these things is present
in the instant motion, although it must be denied in any event for Plaintiff’s
failure to engage in meet-and-confer efforts, as noted above.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery
responses (Docket #23) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 6th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

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

Page 2 of 2