Carthage v. Radtke et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 12/4/2017 DENYING 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Charles E. Carthage, Jr. at Dodge Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES E. CARTHAGE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-636-JPS

DYLAN RADTKE, MARC CLEMENTS,
WILLIAM J. POLLARD, JIM
SCHWOCHERT, and JOHN and JANE
DOES,

ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Dodge Correctional Institution,
filed a pro se complaint claiming his civil rights were violated. See (Docket
#1). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses.
(Docket

#17).

Plaintiff

apparently

served

discovery

requests

on

Defendants by mail on or about November 13, 2017. (Docket #1-1 at 1).
Defendants responded by letter on November 20, 2017, noting that
because the discovery deadline in this case is November 30, 2017,
Plaintiff’s discovery requests were not served sufficiently early to permit
Defendants the full thirty days allotted under the federal and Local
discovery rules in order to respond. Id. This is a violation of the Court’s
scheduling order, which states that “[a]ll requests for discovery shall be
served by a date sufficiently early so that all discovery is completed no
later than Thursday, November 30, 2017.” (Docket #13 at 2) (emphasis in
original). Consequently, Defendants are refusing to respond to the
discovery requests. (Docket #17-1 at 1).

In his motion, Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Defendants to
respond. (Docket #17). However, he offers no argument in support of the
request. In particular, he gives no reason whatsoever why his late-served
discovery requests should nevertheless be enforced by the Court. Further,
Plaintiff does not provide evidence that he engaged in meaningful efforts
to meet and confer with Defendants in an effort to resolve his concerns
prior to seeking the Court’s intervention, as is required by the rules of this
Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Civ. L. R. 37; Williams v. Frank, No.
06C1051, 2007 WL 1217358, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2007). For these
reasons, the Court must deny the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery
responses (Docket #17) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 4th day of December, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2