Jenkins, James v. Wiegel, Keith
Filing
42
ORDER denying plaintiff's 33 Motion to Compel ; granting defendant's 35 Motion for Protective Order ; granting plaintiff's 39 Motion for Extension of Time to file his response to defendant's motion for protective order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/7/2014. (elc),(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. Currently before the court are three related motions. Plaintiff has
filed a motion to compel discovery of (1) documentation of the investigation into the incident
between plaintiff and defendant that is ths subject of this lawsuit; and (2) documents regarding
investigations and disciplinary proceedings concerning previous alleged batteries by defendant.
Defendant has responded to plaintiff’s motion and has filed his own motion for a protective
order barring plaintiff access to inmate grievances filed by inmates other than plaintiff. Finally,
plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time to submit his response to the motion for
protective order, which the court will grant (plaintiff’s response deadline was December 17 and
his late response is postmarked December 20, so there is minimal prejudice to defendant, and
I have already provided leeway to defendant after he failed to initially respond to plaintiff’s
earlier motion to compel discovery, see dkt. 28, 31).
Turning to the substance of the parties’ motions, defendant states that he has now turned
over the investigation materials regarding the incident between plaintiff and defendant, and that
video evidence will be made available to plaintiff upon his request. Accordingly, I will deny
plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of these materials as moot.
As for the other inmate grievances against defendant, defendant states that he has
produced a report summarizing the grievances and examiners’ responses with the names of the
complaining inmates redacted to protect inmates’ expectation of confidentiality in their
grievance materials. In response to plaintiff’s request for these names, defendant seeks a
protective order barring access to this information. Also, to the extent that plaintiff seeks “all
investigators conclusion and disciplinary recommendations for all the other inmates . . . who
alleged [defendant] battered and/or threatened to do so . . . .” defendant seeks a protective order
barring access to these materials. Defendant again states that providing these materials would
essentially give away the identities of the inmates involved because plaintiff would be able to
deduce the identities from a detailed description of the events. In the alternative, defendant asks
for an in camera review of these materials.
In response, plaintiff asks for an in camera review of these documents for “potentially
relevant information” and suggests that he be given the names of the other inmate complainants
because they would surely waive confidentiality if asked, as part of a “convict’s code . . . just like
correctional officers and police officers [have] their honor codes.” He also suggests that this
evidence could be used to implicate higher-ups who failed to properly supervise defendant.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, I will grant defendant’s motion for a protective
order and deny plaintiff’s motion to compel. The legitimate confidentiality concerns raised by
defendant outweigh the limited relevance these documents have. It is highly unlikely these
previous incidents involving other inmates would be admissible, because Federal Rule of
Evidence 404 generally prohibits prior acts evidence. (I note that if any of the other inmates’
grievances against defendant for excessive force were found to have merit, then these upheld
2
complaints probably would fit within the exceptions allowed by Rule 404(b). But dismissed
claims of excessive force have little or no probative value versus the high potential for unfair
prejudice, making them generally inadmissable under F.R. Ev. 403).
I do not share plaintiff’s view that other inmates necessarily would want their grievances
publicized. For the same reasons there seems to be little justification for an in camera review of
these other grievances. At this point, plaintiff has the electronic summaries of the administrative
review process for these grievances, with the inmates’ names redacted. To the extent that
plaintiff seeks evidence of defendant’s supervisors’ misconduct with the hopes of potentially
adding them as defendants, these documents should suffice to show who reviewed the grievances
and thus was aware of defendant’s alleged conduct.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that:
(1)
Plaintiff James Jenkins’ motion for extension of time to file his response
to defendant’s motion for protective order, dkt. 39, is GRANTED.
(2)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, dkt. 33, is DENIED.
(3)
Defendant Keith Wiegel’s motion for a protective order, dkt. 35, is
GRANTED; defendant will not have to disclose information concerning
other inmates’ grievances as detailed above.
Entered this 7th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge
3
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?