Goodvine v. Swiekatowski et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Sanctions ; denying 62 Motion to Supplement the motion for sanctions. Plaintiff has until 10/9/09 to supplement his summary judgment submissions. 63 Motion for Extension of Time by defendants to disclose an Islamic expert is granted. Expert to be disclosed by 10/16/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 10/2/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHRISTOPHER GOODVINE, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM SWIEKATOWSKI, SARAH COOPER, CHAPLAIN M. DONOVAN, WILLIAM POLLARD, PETER ERICKSEN, MICHAEL MOHR, TOM GOZINSKE, RICK RAEMISCH, JOHN BETT, DAN WESTFIELD, MATTHEW FRANK, and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants. ORDER 08-cv-702-bbc

On August 5, 2009, the court granted plaintiff Christopher Goodvine's motion to compel defendants to respond to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories nos 1-4. On September 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions because defendants had failed to provide these responses to plaintiff. On September 28, 2009, plaintiff moved to supplement his motion for sanctions after defendants responded to his interrogatories on September 24, 2009. Defendants filed a brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for sanctions on September 30, 2009. Although defendants concede that they should have complied with this court's August 5, 2009 order in a more timely manner, they point out that the order did not provide a deadline for submitting their responses. Also, they state that the delay was inadvertent because of a calendaring error. Defendants do not oppose allowing plaintiff to supplement his summary judgment submissions based on their responses to his discovery requests. Plaintiff may have

until October 9, 2009 to supplement his summary judgment submissions. Because defendants delay in responding to this court's August 5, 2009 order was inadvertent, plaintiff's motion for sanctions will be denied. Also before the court is defendants' motion for an extension of time until October 16, 2009 to disclose an Islamic expert. This two week delay would not cause any prejudice to plaintiff. Therefore, the request will be granted.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motions for sanctions and to supplement his motion for sanctions, dkt. ##53 and 62, are DENIED. 2. Plaintiff may have until October 9, 2009 to supplement his summary judgment submissions. 3. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to disclose an Islamic expert, dkt. #63, is GRANTED. Defendants shall disclose this expert no later than October 16, 2009. Entered this 2n d day of October, 2009. BY THE COURT: /s/ STEPHEN L. CROCKER Magistrate Judge

2