Jones v. Eckstein et al

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/9/2018: DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; GRANTING 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Compel in Part; and DENYING 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kurtis D. Jones at Green Bay Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KURTIS D. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL MENNING, JACOB
HEFFERNAN, MICHAEL
DEDERING, JOSEPH SPENCER,
JENNIFER HARRIS-FORBES,
SAMANTHA SCHWARTZ-OSCAR,
ANDREW WICKMAN, REBECCA
LENZ, DANIEL CUSHING, JOSEPH
BONNIN, and JOHN LANNOYE,

Case No. 17-CV-1316-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
The Court takes up Plaintiff’s pending motions. On March 14, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (Docket #22). Plaintiff’s motion asks for
production of numerous categories of documents. Id. Plaintiff further states
that he previously requested these documents from the Green Bay
Correctional Institution records custodian, but he apparently did not
receive a satisfactory response. Id. He also mentions issuing some discovery
requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it is not clear
to whom these were sent. Id. at 9. The next day, Plaintiff filed a motion to
withdraw his motion to compel “in part.” (Docket #23). The one-page
motion does not clearly explain which portion of the motion to compel
Plaintiff wishes to withdraw. Id.
Defendants responded to the motion to compel on March 19, 2018.
(Docket #24). They explain that the withdrawal was directed at the

discovery requests discussed at the end of the motion to compel. Id. As to
Plaintiff’s remaining complaints, Defendants note two problems. First, he
failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 37, which requires a certification of
a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute prior to the filing of a discovery
motion. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s discussions with the records custodian are not a
substitute for attempting to resolve his concerns with Defendants’ counsel.
Second, they explain how they have produced all of the documents which
are both relevant and exist (other than Plaintiff’s medical records which he
must pay for). Id. at 3–9.
Plaintiff has declined to file a reply within the time allotted. Civ. L.
R. 7(c). In light of the unrebutted assertions in Defendants’ response,
particularly Plaintiff’s failure to abide by Civil Local Rule 37, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel must be denied. Though the Court is still not certain
about the full scope of the motion to withdraw, for the sake of completeness
that motion will also be granted.
On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time
available for discovery. (Docket #26). The current discovery deadline is
April 5, 2018. (Docket #13 at 2). Plaintiff says he served another set of
discovery requests on March 13, 2018, and Defendants’ counsel informed
him that this makes them untimely, as the responses would be due after
April 5. (Docket #26). Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. As the Court
explained in its scheduling order, extensions of time are rarely granted.
(Docket #13 at 5). Plaintiff has known of the discovery deadline since
December 2017 when the scheduling order was issued. He has had ample
time to obtain all of the discovery materials required to litigate this matter.
Plaintiff’s motion offers no exceptional circumstances warranting
adjustment of the discovery deadline.
Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Docket #22) be
and the same is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his
motion to compel in part (Docket #23) be and the same is hereby
GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension
of the discovery deadline (Docket #26) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

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

Page 3 of 3