Osborne v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/3/2018 DENYING 44 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Joshua J. Osborne at Redgranite Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOSHUA J. OSBORNE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-754-JPS

MICHAEL MEISNER, SANDRA
HAUTAMAKI, ANDREW WESNER,
CHAD KELLER, MATTHEW FOCHS,
JASON RALLS, DEANNA TIMM,
COREY HEFT, KIMBERLY JOHNSON,
TRAVIS RODER, and BRIAN SMITH,

ORDER
Defendants.

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Redgranite Correctional Institution,
filed a pro se complaint claiming his civil rights were violated. See (Docket
#21). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses.
(Docket #44). Plaintiff apparently served a set of discovery requests on
Defendants on or about December 15, 2017. (Docket #44 at 1). He seeks,
among other things, incident reports, medical records, and prison
regulations and policies. See id.
Defendants responded by letter that same day, noting that they
would not respond because the discovery requests were served late.
(Docket #46 at 4). That is, because the discovery deadline in this case is
December 31, 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 to respond. 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 Sunday, December 31, 2017.” (Docket #14 at 2)
(emphasis in original). Consequently, Defendants are refusing to respond
to the discovery requests.
In his motion, Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Defendants to
respond. (Docket #44 at 2). However, he offers little argument in support
of the request other than to state that Defendants are refusing to respond
to his requests. Id. In particular, he gives no reason whatsoever why his
late-served discovery requests should nevertheless be enforced by the
Court. He claims that Defendants should have “ask[ed] for more time to
submit their discovery to [P]laintiff,” id., but they are under no obligation
to seek relief from the scheduling order on Plaintiff’s behalf. Discovery in
this case has been open since late July, and the Court is not sympathetic to
Plaintiff’s last-minute efforts to seek the information he needs to sustain
his claims. Finally, 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 #44) be and the same is hereby DENIED.

Page 2 of 3

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3