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)

Download PDF
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

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?