Laborers Local 236, AFL-CIO et al v. Walker, Scott et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 39 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by Plaintiffs AFSCME Local 60, AFL-CIO, Laborers Local 236, AFL-CIO and Jamie O'Brien. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 2/8/2012. (voc)

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

LABORERS LOCAL 236, AFLO-CIO
AFSCME LOCAL 60, AFL-CIO and
JAMIE O’BRIEN,

Plaintiffs,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
11-cv-462-wmc
SCOTT WALKER, JAMES R. SCOTT,
JUDITH NEWMANN and RODNEY G.
PASCH,
Defendants.

The court is in receipt of the motion of plaintiffs Laborer Locals 236, AFLIO-CIO
AFSCME Local 60, AFL-CIO and Jamie O’Brien seeking to appeal Magistrate Judge
Crocker’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. #39.) Specifically,
plaintiffs object to Judge Crocker’s denial of discovery “related to the intended effect of
Act 10, the alleged compelling interest for enacting Act 10, and less restrictive
alternatives that may have been available.” (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) governs this court’s review of Judge
Crocker’s order, and provides in pertinent part:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, . .
. [t]he district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
Judge Crocker denied the plaintiffs’ motion during a telephonic hearing and that
same day entered the following text order:

At a December 7, 2011 telephone hearing, the court denied
plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery (dkt. #33) for reasons
stated. If plaintiffs intend to appeal this decision they must
do so not later than their deadline to respond to defendants’
motion to dismiss and must order a copy of the hearing transcript
for the record. Defendants may respond to any appeal not later
than their deadline to reply in support of their dismissal
motion. The court moved plaintiffs’ response/appeal deadline
to December 19, 2011 and moved defendants’ reply/response
deadline to December 30, 2011. Each side will bear its own
costs on this motion.
(Dkt. #37.)
In filing its motion, plaintiffs failed to submit the hearing transcript, even after
defendants raised this issue in their opposition brief.

At plaintiffs’ own choosing,

therefore, the court has no means to review Judge Crocker’s decision, much less to
determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the court will
DENY plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery.
Entered this 8th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2