Matz, Shaun v. Raemisch, Richard et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying 105 Motion to Strike. Defendants may have until August 6, 2013, to file an amended draft of their reply to plaintiff's response to their proposed findings of fact, as discussed in this order. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/30/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SHAUN MATZ,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
10-cv-668-bbc
v.
MICHAEL VANDENBROOK, KURT SCHWEBKE,
DR. NELSON, SEAN SALTER, LT. LANE,
LINDA FAIT, TRAVIS BITTLEMAN,
C.O. VASOS, C.O B. NEUMAIER,
MICHAEL MEISNER, JANET NICKEL,
BRIAN BENTLION, D. MORGAN,
BYRON BARTOW and TIM DUMA,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Shaun Matz is proceeding on various claims regarding his mental health
treatment at Columbia Correctional Institution.

Defendants have filed a motion for

summary judgment, dkt. #84, which the parties have finished briefing. However, before I
can address that motion, I must address two procedural issues.
First, plaintiff has filed a motion to strike various affidavits filed by defendants on the
ground that they “bore no signatures in the Defendants’ own handwriting.” Dkt. #105.
Instead, each of the affidavits includes a signature block with a typed signature of the affiant
preceded by a “/s/.”

Plaintiff acknowledges that both lawyers and “non-parties” are

permitted under the court’s administrative procedures to sign documents electronically, but

1

he argues that the procedures do not allow typed signatures on the affidavits of parties.
Plaintiff is correct that the court’s procedure on signatures does not discuss the parties
themselves.

It expressly permits non-parties and “filing users” (the lawyers) to sign

documents electronically, but it is silent about documents drafted by parties. That was an
oversight in drafting the procedures. The previous version of the procedures used the word
“non-lawyers” instead of non-parties, but that was changed because some pro se parties are
also “filing users.” Unfortunately, the attempt to address confusion about one term led to
the inadvertent omission of parties from the procedure. However, it would make no sense
to impose more onerous signing requirements on parties than nonparties, so I decline to
strike the parties’ affidavits. The court thanks plaintiff for bringing this issue to the court’s
attention so that the language of the procedure can be corrected.
In reviewing the parties’ summary judgment materials, I uncovered another
procedural issue. Although defendants submitted many hundreds of pages of documentary
evidence with their summary judgment motion, they cited almost no documentary evidence
in their proposed findings of fact. Instead, they rely on their affidavits in which they
apparently summarize what the documents say.

I have repeatedly told counsel

for

defendants represented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice that this practice is not
acceptable. E.g., Matthews v. Raemisch, No. 10-cv-742-bbc (W.D. Wis. Feb. 23, 2012);
Wilson v. Greetan, 571 F. Supp. 2d 948, 952 (W.D. Wis. 2007). It not only violates the
best evidence rule, Dugan v. R.J. Corman R. Co., 344 F.3d 662, 669 (7th Cir. 2003), but
it makes the task of resolving factual disputes about the documents much more difficult.

2

Accordingly, I will give defendants one week to submit an amended copy of their
reply to plaintiff’s responses to their proposed findings of fact. Dkt. #106. The amended
draft should include citations to any documents that serve as the foundation to any affidavit
testimony cited in the proposed findings. If the affiant relied on documents not previously
filed with the court, those documents should be submitted as well. Because plaintiff already
has had an opportunity to respond to the proposed findings and I am not allowing any
changes other than record citations, there is no need for any additional response from
plaintiff.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff Shaun Matz’s motion to strike, dkt. #105, is DENIED.
2. Defendants may have until August 6, 2013, to file an amended draft of their reply
to plaintiff’s response to their proposed findings of fact, as discussed in this order.
Entered this 30th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3