Rivera, Natanael v. Schultz, Machael et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying plaintiff's 88 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/13/2013. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NATANAEL RIVERA,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-240-bbc
v.
MICHAEL SCHULTZ, SAMUEL MENNING,
LAWRENCE PETERSON and GEORGE JIMENEZ,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Natanael Rivera is proceeding on a claim that defendants Michael
Schultz, Samuel Menning, Lawrence Peterson and George Jimenez subjected him to a strip
search, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial is scheduled for November 14, 2013.
On November 8, 2013, plaintiff a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. #88. Because plaintiff
alleged that defendants simply ignored his request for production of documents, I directed
defendants to respond to the request or show cause why they should not be required to do
so.
In their response, defendants say that they did not comply with plaintiff’s discovery
request because it was untimely. In particular, they say that they did not receive the request
until October 7, 2013, only a few days before the October 11, 2013 discovery cutoff date.
Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 gives parties 30 days to respond to a request, defendants argue
that a request that came less than 30 days before the deadline should be considered
1

untimely.
Defendants’ position is a reasonable one. Because the discovery cutoff is only a few
weeks before trial (and about the same time as the deadline for filing various trial
submissions), it would not make any sense to allow parties to wait until just before the
discovery deadline to submit new discovery requests. Although the preliminary pretrial
conference order does not define the term “discovery cutoff,” plaintiff could have sought
clarification from the court if he was unsure. Further, he does not provide any justification
for waiting as long he did to submit the requests, in which he asks for 20 different sets of
documents.
In any event, I agree with defendants that the each of the requests either relates to
information that has no apparent relevance to this case or has been resolved previously in
the context of plaintiff’s other motions to compel. Accordingly, I am denying plaintiff’s
motion.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Natanael Rivera’s motion to compel, dkt, #88, is
DENIED.
Entered this 13th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3