Smith v. Frame

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/27/2018: GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take Depositions by Written Questions and DENYING 38 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Virgil M. Smith at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
VIRGIL M. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAILEY FRAME,

Case No. 17-CV-1745-JPS

ORDER
Defendant.

The Court herein addresses two of Plaintiff’s pending motions. On
June 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to conduct depositions by
written questions, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31.
(Docket #37). Plaintiff wants to depose eleven non-party witnesses related
to the allegations of this case. Id. at 2. It is unclear to the Court how relevant
the testimony of most of these witnesses will be. In any event, the Court
will grant Plaintiff his requested leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(2). The
remainder of Plaintiff’s motion asks the Court to organize the depositions,
including subpoenaing the witnesses to this Court, issuing a writ to obtain
Plaintiff’s presence here for the depositions, and paying for a court reporter
to take the depositions. (Docket #37 at 3–10). The Court will not do any of
this. Plaintiff alone is responsible for taking the depositions he desires, and
he must do so at his own expense. His in forma pauperis status only entitles
him to delayed payment of the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff cannot call
upon the taxpayers’ funds to subsidize any other aspect of his litigation.
On June 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses to
certain of his interrogatories propounded to Defendant. (Docket #38).
Plaintiff sent twenty-five interrogatories to her. (Docket #38-1 at 3–7). The

first three seek factual information, and she responded to them without
objection. Id. at 9–10. The other twenty-two requests ask Defendant to
“[s]tate all words in order” of various statutes and in the headnotes of
various case opinions. Id. at 10–17. Defendant appropriately objected to
these requests. The discovery process may be used to seek factual evidence.
It may not be used as a substitute for one’s own legal research. Whatever
concerns Plaintiff has with the law library in his institution, he cannot
remedy them by simply asking Defendant to supply him with free copies
of legal materials. The motion to compel will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to take depositions
by written questions (Docket #37) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part in accordance with the terms of this Order; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel
(Docket #38) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 27th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

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

Page 2 of 2