DeBauche, David v. James et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying plaintiff's 48 Motion to Compel re: 61 response to order. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 8/3/2015. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DAVID DEBAUCHE, Plaintiff, ORDER v. 13-cv-553-wmc CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JAMES and SGT. KINGSLAND, Defendants. In its July 16, 2015 opinion, the court ordered defendants to explain their justification for withholding certain materials requested in discovery by DeBauche and deemed confidential by defendants. In response, defendants now represent that they are willing to allow DeBauche to inspect the confidential policies in question without copying them; should DeBauche wish to file any policies with the court, defendants will also do so under seal. compromise. This seems a reasonable As for the administrative confinement file of non-party inmate Luis Ramirez, defendants have adequately explained the security and privacy concerns with permitting another inmate to view that file. Moreover, it is unclear what in Ramirez’s file would be relevant to the specific claims on which DeBauche is being allowed to proceed. (For example, Ramirez does not appear to be among the allegedly dangerous inmates with whom DeBauche claims defendants intentionally housed him.) Without a reasonable indication of the nature and specific relevance of the information DeBauche expects to find in that file, even the court’s inspection in camera would amount to nothing but a fishing expedition at the expense of Ramirez’s privacy and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections’s security interests. Accordingly, DeBauche’s motion to compel is DENIED on that point. Entered this 3rd day of August, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge

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?