Williams v. Hestheaven et al
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/15/2021 DENYING 62 plaintiff's motion to compel. (cc: all counsel and mailed to Diarbro Williams at Green Bay Correctional Institution)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DIARBRO L. WILLIAMS,
Case No. 20-cv-504-pp
and NURSE MICHELLE,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 62)
On May 11, 2021, the court denied plaintiff Diarbro L. Williams’s two
motions to compel and his motion for sanctions. Dkt. No. 61. Three days later,
the plaintiff filed another motion to compel. Dkt. No. 62. The plaintiff asks the
court to compel defendant Cory Heasthaven “to produce production of
documents for inspection and copying and produce the interrogatories.” Id. The
plaintiff says that on May 9, 2021, he wrote to the defendant asking for these
documents. Id. He also says that on February 14, 2021, he filed a motion to
compel seeking these documents, but that the defendant has not responded.
Id. (The court has not received from the plaintiff any motions to compel dated
on or around February 14, 2021. It received and ruled on a motion dated
March 23, 2021 and a motion dated April 2, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 53, 56.)
Counsel for defendant Heasthaven responds that on April 26, 2021, his
office sent responses to the plaintiff’s discovery requests. Dkt. No. 64 at 1. He
explains that on May 10, 2021, his office received a letter from the plaintiff
dated May 1, 2021, requesting the same discovery responses. Id. Counsel
assumed “the correspondence crossed paths in the mail” and did not resend
the April 26, 2021 responses. Id. Nonetheless, counsel stated that he was
providing the plaintiff a copy of the letter May 20, 2021 letter to the court and
an additional copy of the April 26, 2021 responses. Id. The plaintiff has not
responded to counsel’s letter.
Given defense counsel’s response, it appears that the parties have
resolved the issue and that the plaintiff’s motion is moot. Even if that is not the
case, the plaintiff’s motion to compel did not comply with this court’s local
rules: he did not certify in his motion that he conferred or attempted to meet
and confer with the defendant to resolve the discovery issue before asking the
court to intervene. The court denied the plaintiff’s two previous motions to
compel because he did not comply with that requirement. See Dkt. No. 61 at 2
(citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), Civil Local Rule 37 (E.D. Wis.)).
Because the plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot and because it fails to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and Civil L.R. 37, the court DENIES the
plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 62. The court reminds the plaintiff that he
has an obligation to try to work with the defendants to resolve future discovery
issues before seeking court intervention.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of July, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?