McDuffie v. Swiekatowski et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/15/2018 DENYING 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Brandon C. McDuffie at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRANDON C. MCDUFFIE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-CV-984-JPS

v.
WILLIAM SWIEKATOWSKI,

ORDER

Defendant.
On March 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery
responses from Defendant. (Docket #29). He says he requested documents
from Defendant in certain identified categories and that Defendant objected
to producing them. Id. at 1. Plaintiff avers that the documents are “highly
relevant to this case and will do me more harm to not inspect them than it
will for me to inspect them.” (Docket #30 ¶ 5).
The Court must deny the motion, as it is premature. Before seeking
Court intervention into discovery matters, Plaintiff must first serve
discovery requests on Defendant consistent with the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Defendant does not appropriately
respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Plaintiff must then make goodfaith efforts to confer with Defendant’s 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. Bd. 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). Here, Plaintiff offers no evidence that he engaged in good-faith

discussions with defense counsel to compromise on their areas of
disagreement concerning the document requests. That must be done, and
evidence of those efforts must be provided, before the Court will entertain
a motion to compel.
Moreover, if he should file such a motion in the future, Plaintiff is
warned that he must do more than simply reference Defendant’s failure to
respond to certain discovery requests and baldly claim that the requests are
relevant. Rather, he must provide argument and citation to authority as to
why each request is relevant and proportional to the needs of his case, why
any existing document production by Defendant, if any, is inadequate or
incomplete, and why Defendant’s objections to his requests are without
merit. No such argument 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 #29) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 15th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

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

Page 2 of 2