Jenkins, James v. Wiegel, Keith
Filing
31
ORDER denying 30 Motion for Sanctions; denying 27 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 11/5/2013. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES D. JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
13-cv-285-bbc
KEITH WIEGEL,
Defendant.
Plaintiff James Jenkins is proceeding on a claim that defendant Keith Wiegel used
excessive force against him. In an October 21, 2013 order, I noted that plaintiff filed a motion
to compel discovery after defendant apparently failed to respond to either plaintiff’s requests or
motion to compel. I stated as follows in the October 21 order:
Uncharacteristically for state defendants represented by the
Wisconsin Department of Justice, Wiegel has not responded to the
motion. This leads the court to believe that the lines of
communication have gotten crossed somewhere. Before I consider
any possible objections to these requests waived, I will give
defendant a short deadline to respond to plaintiff’s motion to
compel. Failure to respond will result in his objections being
waived.
Defendant has now responded, stating that discovery responses were prepared, due to an
oversight were not mailed, but have now been sent. Defendant also states that prior to filing his
motion to compel, plaintiff did not attempt to informally resolve the issue, as I suggested would
be a good idea in the preliminary pretrial conference order. Of course, none of this excuses
defendant from failing to initially respond to the motion to compel itself.
Plaintiff has filed his own motion for sanctions regarding defendant’s failure to respond
to his discovery requests. It is possible that defendant’s belated discovery responses crossed in
the mail with plaintiff’s latest motion; if plaintiff has not yet received defendant’s responses,
then he should immediately let the court know. Incredibly, defendant did not responded to this
motion by the November 4, 2013 deadline set by the court.
Even if defendant’s latest failure to respond is just his way of saying that he is standing
on his previous response to the court’s October 21, 2013 order, this doesn’t to cut it. Defendant
has now failed to promptly respond to (1) plaintiff’s initial discovery requests; (2) plaintiff’s
motion to compel; and (3) plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. Just to be clear, it is this court’s
expectation that defendant responds to each motion on which it sets a briefing schedule.
The saving grace for defendant is that it is so early in this case that it is difficult to see
any prejudice to plaintiff. Accordingly, I will deny plaintiff’s motion to compel and his motion
for sanctions at this time. But these motions are denied without prejudice so that if plaintiff has
any problems with the way defendant has responded (or failed to respond) to future requests,
he may bring a new motion to compel and for sanctions. At this point, the court is inclined to
sanction defendant for any further failure to meet schedules set by the court or any needless
delay he causes plaintiff.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that plaintiff James Jenkins’ motions to compel discovery and for
sanctions, dkt. 27, 30, are DENIED without prejudice.
Entered this 5th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?