Riker, Sean v. Riker, Tayler

Filing 52

ORDER denying plaintiff's 46 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/12/2013. (jef/cc: defendant),(ps)

Riker, Sean v. Riker, Tayler

Doc. 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SEAN ANTHONY RIKER,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-641-bbc
v.
TAYLOR ANNE RIKER,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plaintiff Sean Anthony Riker, an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility,
is proceeding on a claim that defendant Taylor Anne Riker slandered him by falsely telling
the police that he had downloaded child pornography on his computer. Both plaintiff and
defendant are representing themselves. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery from
defendant, dkt. #46, and specifically asks the court to order defendant to respond to
interrogatories and requests for documents submitted by plaintiff. Dkt. #43.
Subsequently, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that the parties are engaged
in settlement negotiations and asking the court to refrain from issuing any decisions in the
case. Dkt. #51. However, I am issuing this decision denying plaintiff’s motion to compel
because plaintiff should know that his interrogatory and document requests were improper
and unacceptable. The majority of plaintiff’s discovery requests are inflammatory and
irrelevant to the claim in this case. For example, several of plaintiff’s interrogatories ask
defendant to admit that she has engaged in various criminal activity, including that she

1

Dockets.Justia.com

committed burglary, viewed child pornography and abused her children. This information
is irrelevant to plaintiff’s defamation claim; even if it were not, defendant is not required to
admit criminal activity through discovery. Such requests seem intended to intimidate or
humiliate defendant rather than obtain information relevant to this case. Plaintiff also
requests irrelevant documents from defendant, such as copies of defendant’s journal entries,
criminal charges filed against defendant, web postings, bank statements and pictures of child
pornography.

Defendant is not required to respond to any of these because such

information is irrelevant to plaintiff’s defamation claim. Further, possession and distribution
of child pornography is illegal and plaintiff’s request for any child pornography is totally
inappropriate. Accordingly, I am denying plaintiff’s motion to compel. In the event the
parties do not settle their disputes, plaintiff should know that any future discovery requests
must be tailored specifically to his defamation claim.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Sean Riker’s motion to compel, dkt. #46, is DENIED.
Entered this 12th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2