Rigsby, Rodney v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company et al
Filing
198
ORDER denying 187 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/14/2015. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
RODNEY RIGSBY, CATHERINE CONRAD
and QUINCY M. NERI,
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
14-cv-23-bbc
CHRIS MISCIK, BRUCE BERNDT, BERNDT, CPA,
MICHAEL RILEY and AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP,
Defendants.
Pro se plaintiffs Catherine Conrad and Quincy Neri have filed a motion to compel
discovery from defendants Bruce Berndt and Berdnt, CPA. Dkt. 187. (Plaintiff Rodney Rigsby
did not join the motion.) The parties disagree whether plaintiffs complied with the requirement
in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 to confer in good faith with defendants before filing this motion, but I need
not resolve that issue because plaintiffs have made no showing that they are entitled to the relief
they are requesting.
The first problem is that it is not clear what plaintiffs want the court to do. They say
that they want the court to order defendants “to re-submit Plaintiffs’ discovery requests
immediately,” but they do not identify any particular requests or develop an argument regarding
why defendants’ response to a particular request was inadequate. Later in their motion they
refer obliquely to “insurance policies,” but they provide no details.
In any event, plaintiffs have not even attempted to explain why they are entitled to any
discovery that defendants have failed to provide. Plaintiffs make a conclusory assertion that
their discovery requests “are not unduly burdensome,” but we don’t even reach that
consideration if the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence or if defendants have already responded adequately to plaintiffs’ requests.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Nothing in plaintiffs’ opening or reply briefs suggests that defendants
have refused to provide information that could help plaintiffs prove their claim that defendants
breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs. Accordingly, I am denying their motion to compel.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the motion to compel filed by plaintiffs Catherine Conrad and
Quincy Neri, dkt. 187, is DENIED.
Entered this 14th day of January, 2015.
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?