Atkinson, Christopher v. Broe, J.C. et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 40 motion for leave to file an amended answer; granting in part and denying in part 46 motion for issuance of subpoena. The clerk of court is directed to issue a subpoena duces tecum promptly for service upon the Bureau of Prisons commanding production of documents and information within 14 days of service, relating to defendant Garstka's work attendance at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin, during the following periods: June 15, 2014 through June 28, 2014; and July 27, 2014 through August 9, 2014, including as applicable "National Finance Center" "Time and Attendance Reports." Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 1/13/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ATKINSON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
15-cv-386-wmc
A.C. BROE, K. GARSTKA, A. WEBER,
T. ROBERTS and L.C. WARD,
Defendants.1
Pro se plaintiff Christopher Scott Atkinson is proceeding on claims that
defendants, current or former employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons employed at
FCI Oxford, violated his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.

Specifically, he alleges that defendants removed funds from his prison

trust account without his permission, and then they retaliated (or threatened retaliation)
against him for complaining. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending, and
the court anticipates ruling and issuing an opinion on that motion shortly.

In the

meantime, two separate motions require more immediate attention: defendant K.
Garstka’s motion for leave to file an amended answer (dkt. #40) and plaintiff’s motion
for issuance of a subpoena (dkt. #46). For the following reasons, both motions will be
granted, although the latter only in part.
I.

Leave to Amend

Defendant Garstka states in his motion to amend that after reviewing documents

The case caption is updated to correct the spelling of the names of two of the defendants,
previously misidentified as “J.C. Broe” and “K. Garska.”
1

showing that he was not in fact working at the FCI Oxford prison facility during the week
of July 24, 2014, he realized that his original answers to two paragraphs in the complaint
were not accurate. He has also concluded that sufficient information exists to deny the
truth of the factual allegations in three other paragraphs. Thus, Garstka seeks to correct
his answers to those five paragraphs of plaintiff’s complaint. With his motion, Garstka
also filed a supporting declaration and a copy of his proposed amended answer. (Dkt.
##41, 42.)
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “[t]the court should freely give leave [to amend a
pleading] when justice so requires.” Moreover, the court has broad discretion to grant a
proposed amendment, or to deny it for reasons of undue delay, bad faith, futility, or
undue prejudice to the opposing party. See, e.g., Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th
Cir. 2008); Bethany Pharmacal Co. v. QVC, Inc., 241 F.3d 854, 861 (7th Cir. 2001);
Larkin v. Galloway, 266 F.3d 718, 721-22 (7th Cir. 2001). None of the justifications
listed above for denying defendant Garstka’s motion to amend would appear to apply
here. In particular, there would appear to be no undue prejudice to plaintiff because: (1)
defendant Garstka is only seeking to correct factual matters, not add or change legal
defenses; and (2) he made these facts known to plaintiff as part of defendants’ summary
judgment submissions. Discovery remains open, and plaintiff has had (and still has) time
and opportunity to address any new factual dispute. Indeed, the second motion before
the court seeks information relevant to Garstka’s proposed amended answer. Therefore,
the interests of justice favor allowing defendant Garstka to amend his answer.

2

II.

Issuance of Subpoena

In response to defendant Garstka’s motion, plaintiff also now seeks issuance of a
subpoena to the Bureau of Prisons commanding production of documents and
information relating to defendant Garstka’s work attendance at the FCI Oxford facility
during four pay periods in 2014.

Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion (dkt. #48),

arguing that plaintiff has no need for this information and that its production would be
unduly burdensome, but the court is not persuaded by these arguments.

On the

contrary, most of the information Atkinson now seeks relates directly to factual matters
that the court is now allowing defendant Garstka to correct in his amended answer.
Therefore, plaintiff has a legitimate discovery interest in this information that
overrides any asserted “annoyance and undue burden to Defendant Garstka’s privacy
that producing [it] would cause.” (Dkt. #48, at 6.) Because plaintiff provides no reasons
why the information sought in the third and fourth pay periods identified (covering parts
of August, September, and November, 2014) would be relevant to issues in dispute in
this lawsuit, however, the court will only issue a subpoena for information from the first
two pay periods requested (covering parts of June, July, and August 2014).

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Defendant K. Garstka’s motion for leave to file an amended answer (dkt. #40)
is GRANTED.
2) Plaintiff Christopher Scott Atkinson’s motion for issuance of subpoena (dkt.
#46) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as explained above.
3

3) The clerk of court is directed to issue a subpoena duces tecum promptly for
service upon the Bureau of Prisons commanding production of documents and
information within 14 days of service, relating to defendant Garstka’s work
attendance at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin,
during the following periods: June 15, 2014 through June 28, 2014; and July
27, 2014 through August 9, 2014, including as applicable “National Finance
Center” “Time and Attendance Reports.”
Entered this 13th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4