Muhammad, Maryam v. Louis, Beverly et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying plaintiff's 52 motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 4/27/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MARYAM E. MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION and ORDER
15-cv-41-wmc

BEVERLY LOUIS et al.,
Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff Maryam E. Muhammad is proceeding in this civil lawsuit on claims that
employees of the City of Madison Community Development Authority (“CDA”) violated her
rights under the constitution and federal law by terminating her housing benefits without
providing due process. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment recently came under
advisement, but in the meantime plaintiff has filed a motion to compel (dkt. 52), which I am
denying.
In her motion, plaintiff claims that defendants failed to respond appropriately to her
request to produce documents that she served on February 21, 2018, in which she requested
her CDA files from October 2005 to March 18, 2014. Defendants explain that provided
plaintiff with copies of all records in her CDA files pertaining to the 2014 termination of
plaintiff’s Section 8 housing voucher, but that they objected to producing any other records
in plaintiff’s CDA files because it would be overly burdensome (plaintiff’s files date back to
2002), and, regardless, would not lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Furthermore,
defendants informed plaintiff that she could copy the excluded portion of her CDA file at her
own expense.

Defendants’ objection and counterproposal are logical, fair and therefore persuasive.
This lawsuit is about whether defendants violated plaintiff’s rights in 2014 when plaintiff’s
housing benefits were terminated.

While plaintiff’s files related to this termination

proceeding are relevant, production of all of plaintiff’s extensive CDA files is irrelevant and
overly burdensome. Plaintiff has not explained how other portions of her files would lead to
admissible evidence.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (dkt. 52) is DENIED.

Entered this 27th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2