Terry v. County of Milwaukee et al

Filing 116

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/30/2018 GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 101 Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for Sanctions or to Extend Deadlines. Sanctions are not warranted at this time; the dates of 39 the Court's 1/10/2018 Trial Scheduling Order will be EXTENDED by separate order. See Order for further details. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
REBECCA TERRY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-CV-1112-JPS

v.
COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, DAVID
A. CLARKE, JR., OFFICER BRIAN
WENZEL, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES
OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY JAIL,
UNKNOWN JAIL SUPERVISORS,
ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES, CAROLYN EXUM,
MORGAN BEVENUE, MARGARET
HOOVER, UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES
OF ARMOR CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH SERVICES, and
UNKNOWN ARMOR
HEALTHCARE SUPERVISORS,

ORDER

Defendants.

On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered Defendant Milwaukee County
and

associated

individual

defendants

(the

“Milwaukee

County

Defendants”) to comply with Plaintiff’s Monell-related discovery requests,
including interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
(Docket #59). The Milwaukee County Defendants then moved for judgment
on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s Monell claims and sought a stay of
discovery on the Monell claims until that motion is decided. (Docket #77,
#87). The Court denied the request for a stay of discovery by text-only order
on April 3, 2018. The motion for judgment on the pleadings became ripe on
April 26, 2018 and remains pending.

On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed an expedited motion pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 7(h) requesting sanctions against the Milwaukee County
Defendants. (Docket #101). Plaintiff accuses them of refusing to comply
with any of the Court’s orders regarding discovery. Id. at 2. According to
Plaintiff, it seems the Milwaukee County Defendants think they can refuse
to respond to her discovery requests because they anticipate they will
succeed in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. See id. at 2.
This is undoubtedly the wrong view. Gary v. Badger Process Servs.,
Inc., No. 17-CV-1016-JPS, 2017 WL 6541448, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 16, 2017)
(“[N]othing in the Federal Rules suggest that cases are to be halted any time
a potentially dispositive motion is filed, especially when the motion does
not touch upon alleged jurisdictional defects.”). Defendants must comply
with their discovery obligations unless and until the Court grants them
relief therefrom. A party can never grant itself a stay. See Polzin v. Unifund
CCR Partners, No. 08-C-59, 2009 WL 2474668, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 11, 2009).
To remedy this alleged misconduct, Plaintiff asks for the Court to either
issue evidentiary sanctions against the Milwaukee County Defendants
relative to the Monell claims or, in the alternative, for an extension of the
discovery deadline to allow the Milwaukee County Defendants to come
into compliance with the Court’s directives. (Docket #101 at 3–4); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37(b)(2).
In response to Plaintiff’s motion, the Milwaukee County Defendants
maintain that they have not disregarded the Court’s discovery rulings.
(Docket #105). They argue that the potential document production
associated with those rulings is massive and time-consuming. Id. at 2. In
their view, Plaintiff’s motion is premature, as they have not had sufficient
Page 2 of 3

time to comply with the Court’s orders. Id. at 2–3. In a declaration submitted
with their response and a supplemental declaration submitted a couple of
days later, the Milwaukee County Defendants represent that they have
redoubled their efforts to produce the necessary documents. (Docket #106,
#107).
Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that
sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 are not warranted at this
time. While it seems the Milwaukee County Defendants may not have
begun document production expeditiously after the Court’s discovery
rulings, the Court well appreciates the burden associated with that
production. The better course of action at this juncture is to afford the
parties a brief extension of time to complete discovery and prepare
dispositive motions. The Court will grant a 30-day extension of the
dispositive motion deadline and will push back the other dates and
deadlines in the Court’s trial scheduling order accordingly. An amended
trial scheduling order will be issued contemporaneously with this Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s expedited motion for sanctions
(Docket #101) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part as stated herein.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3