Foote, James v. Polk, John et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 26 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 5/28/2018. (nln),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES F. FOOTE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

Case No. 16-cv-641-wmc

JOHN A. POLK, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff James F. Foote is proceeding in this lawsuit against defendants James A. Polk,
Polks Meat Products and Indianhead Food Distributor on state law claims related to an
incident in which he suffered injury when he bit into a sausage containing a piece of metal.
The defendants are not all represented by the same counsel: Indianhead is represented by Paul
J. Pytlik, while Polk and Polks Meat are represented by R. Fletcher Koch. Now before the
court is Foote’s motion to compel the defendants to respond to his Second Set of
Interrogatories. (Dkt. 26.) I am denying the motion because it is moot as to Indianhead and
it is not properly aimed at Polk and Polks Meat because Foote does not report that he ever
sent his discovery requests to their attorney.
In his motion, Foote states that he mailed his Second Set of Interrogatories to Attorney
Pytlik (Indianhead’s attorney), and he has attached the letter that he sent to Pytlik asking for a
response. Through Pytlik, Indianhead responded that it mailed its response to plaintiff on
May 11, 2018. (Dkt. 27.) In his reply brief, plaintiff does not dispute Indianhead’s assertion,
but reports that as of May 17, 2018, he had not received a response from the other defendants,
Polk and Polk Meats. (Dkt. 29.)

1

I am denying Foote’s motion as to Indianhead because it has responded to Foote’s
discovery request.
As for Polk and Polks Meat, there is no discovery dispute for the court to resolve. Foote
does not claim that he ever actually served Polk and Polk Meat’s attorney, Koch, with his
Second Set of Interrogatories. If plaintiff wants discovery responses from these two defendants,
then he has to serve discovery requests on their lawyer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff James F. Foote’s motion to compel (dkt. 26) is DENIED.

Entered this 28th day of May, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2