Yeoman v. Manlove et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/26/2018. 34 35 Plaintiff's Motions to Compel DENIED without prejudice. Defendants may supplement motion for summary judgment by end of day 8/31/2018; plaintiff may respond to summary judgment motion with 30 days of date supplement is filed. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Adam Yeoman at Waupun Correctional Institution) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
ADAM YEOMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1199-pp

DR. JEFFREY MANLOVE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL (DKT. NOS. 34, 35)
AND SETTING NEW BRIEFING DATES
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing himself, filed
a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants violated his
civil rights at Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI). Dkt. No. 8. On October
26, 2017, the court screened the complaint, and allowed the plaintiff to proceed
with an Eighth Amendment claim that Doctor Jeffrey Manlove, Nurse Gail
Waltz and Sergeant Jodi Tritt showed deliberate indifference toward his serious
medical need by failing to provide treatment for his broken arm for almost an
entire week. Dkt. No. 10 at 7. The plaintiff asked to amend the complaint to
include a supplemental state law medical malpractice claim against Doctor
Manlove and Nurse Waltz, dkt. no. 20, and the court granted the request on
June 11, 2018, dkt. no. 33. Because the defendants already had filed a motion
for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim, the court suspended
summary judgment briefing, and asked the defendants to answer or otherwise

1

respond to the supplemental state law claims on or before July 13, 2018. Dkt.
No. 33.
On July 13, 2018, the defendants filed an amended answer to the
complaint. Dkt. No. 37. The court will, therefore, allow the defendants to
supplement their motion for summary judgment, on or before August 31,
2018. The plaintiff may respond to the defendants’ entire motion for summary
judgment within 30 days from the date the defendants file their supplement.
See Civ. L. R. 56(b)(2).
The plaintiff also has filed two motions to compel. Dkt. Nos. 34, 35. He
asks the court to (1) order the defendants to produce certain documents, (2)
order Tritt to respond to his request for admissions, and (3) order Tritt to
respond to his request for interrogatories. Id.
Local Civil Rule 37 requires that every motion to compel discovery be
accompanied by a written certification that the movant tried in good faith to
informally resolve his disputes with the opposing party before seeking the
court’s assistance. The parties disagree about whether the plaintiff satisfied
this requirement. The plaintiff states that he sent a letter to the defendants,
trying to informally resolve the dispute before seeking the court’s assistance.
Dkt. Nos. 34, 35. He attaches the letter he drafted, dated May 29, 2018. Dkt.
No. 34-1. The defendants indicate that they never received the letter; they
imply that the plaintiff falsified the letter to bypass the requirement to
informally resolve the dispute. Dkt. No. 36. Counsel for the defendants states

2

that the first time he saw this letter was when he reviewed the plaintiff’s
motions to compel. Id. at 2.
The court expects honesty from all litigants. Misrepresenting information
to the court, or presenting false information to the court, can result in the
court imposing sanctions on the misrepresenting party. A “sanction” is a
punishment, and can include, in the worst cases, denial of motions or
dismissal of a case.
The court also reminds the parties that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not allow parties to ask for any and all evidence of any kind.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, a discovery request must seek information that is
“proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues
at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”1 The advisory committee notes to Rule
26 indicate that the rule is worded this way to avoid what are known as
“fishing expeditions”—requests for large amounts of evidence in the hope that
there might be something in that evidence that could prove helpful—and
obstructive tactics.
The court notes that the defendants’ objections include the allegation that the
objected-to requests “are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 36 at 3, 4. As of December 2015,
however, the “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” standard no longer governs discovery under Rule 26. That standard
was replaced by the proportionality standard in the December 2015
amendments.
1

3

When a party makes a discovery request, he or she must be specific. One
of the objections the defendants have posed to some of the plaintiff’s requests
is that they are vague. The plaintiff asks for “[a]ll written statements, originals
or copies, identifiable as reports . . . .” The defendants respond that if the
plaintiff is asking for “incident reports,” they are willing to provide those. So the
issue there was that the defendants objected because they didn’t understand
exactly what the plaintiff was requesting. These are the kinds of
misunderstandings that the parties ought to be able to clear up by
communicating with each other.
The court will give the parties a last opportunity to informally resolve the
discovery issues the plaintiff has raised in his two motions. The court will deny
the motions to compel without prejudice. If, after conferring with the
defendants, the plaintiff still has trouble getting the documents he needs, he
may refile his motion to compel.
Because defendant Tritt seeks summary judgment based on the
plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to her, see dkt. nos. 27,
28, Tritt may (if she thinks it necessary) ask the court to stay any discovery
requests made to her pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment.
See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008).
The court ORDERS that the defendants may supplement their motion for
summary judgment by the end of the day on August 31, 2018. The plaintiff
may respond to the defendants’ entire motion for summary judgment within 30
days from the date the defendants file their supplement.
4

The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motions to compel without prejudice.
Dkt. Nos. 34, 35.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 26th day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

5