JACKSON v. Thurmer et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/14/2010. (eds),(ps)

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

JEVON JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. 09-cv-602-slc MIKE THURMER, DEBRA GEMPELER, ANTHONY MELI and JOHN O'DONOVAN, Defendants. ORDER

Plaintiff Jevon Jackson is proceeding on his claim that defendants Mike Thurmer, Debra Gempeler, Anthony Meli and John O'Donovan punished him for requesting placement I observation status in violation of the First Amendment. Now before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel defendant Gempeler to provide more compete answer to his Interrogatory No. 3. That interrogatory states: Considering that plaintiff Jackson was following the specific instructions of a staff psychologist on September 1, 2009, please state and explain what Jackson should have done differently to adequately address his immediate mental health needs and avoid being issued a conduct report by you. Defendant Gempeler objected to this interrogatory stating that it was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that it required speculation n the part of Gempeler. However, Gempeler did respond that plaintiff was issues the Conduct Report 2007111 for threats against his cell-mate and not for asking to be place on Observation status. Although plaintiff's interrogatory might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, it does ask Gempeler to speculate on facts not within her knowledge, namely plaintiff's immediate mental health needs, what the psychologist told him and what options were available

to him. Gempeler has answered the interrogatory based on her personal knowledge. Therefore, I will deny plaintiff's motion to compel an answer to this interrogatory.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel, dkt. #16, is DENIED.

Entered this 14th day of May, 2010. BY THE COURT: /s/ STEPHEN L. CROCKER Magistrate Judge

2