Gruber, John et al v. Columbia County et al
ORDER denying plaintiff John Gruber's 138 motion to compel, 139 motion regarding deposition and 151 motion for sanctions. Plaintiff must attend his deposition and answer questions put to him by defendants' counsel if properly noticed by defendants within 30 days of this order or face the possibility that this case will be dismissed. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/11/2018. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JOHN GRUBER,
OPINION AND ORDER
CITY OF PORTAGE, SHAWN MURPHY,
KENNETH MANTHEY and KLAUDE THOMPSON,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff John Gruber is proceeding on claims that defendants City of Portage,
Shawn Murphy, Kenneth Manthey and Klaude Thompson violated his constitutional rights
by ticketing and searching cars parked on or near plaintiff’s business and conducting
unnecessary searches of the property. Now before the court are several motions filed by
plaintiff relating to discovery issues, dkts. ##138, 139, 151, all of which must be denied.
In the first motion, plaintiff says the City of Portage has not delivered paperwork
relating to all 275 of the “tickets and fines” he has received since 2014. This motion fails
because plaintiff has not submitted evidence that he ever served relevant discovery request
on defendants to which they failed to respond or that he attempted to confer in good faith
with defendants to resolve any disputes before filing his motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
Therefore, I will deny this motion.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for sanctions, dkt. #151, stating that defendants have
refused to provide plaintiff’s “witnesses” copies of police reports and other documents.
However, as has been explained to plaintiff repeatedly, he must follow the discovery rules
set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Preliminary Pretrial Conference
Order, dkt. #98, if he wishes to obtain documents and other information from defendants.
Plaintiff cannot simply send friends to city offices or submit public records requests and
expect to obtain documents for his use in this litigation. Accordingly, I will deny his motion
for sanctions and will not consider any further filings regarding public records requests he
or his friends have submitted.
Finally, plaintiff filed a motion to quash defendants’ notice of his deposition, arguing
that he has already been deposed in a different lawsuit. Dkt. #139. Plaintiff’s argument is
frivolous, as he is well aware that defendants have not deposed him in this lawsuit, and
defendants were not even involved in the previous lawsuit to which plaintiff refers.
Moreover, Magistrate Judge Crocker previously ordered plaintiff to work with defendants
to schedule his deposition for a date in January. Dkt. #108. Plaintiff’s continued failure to
cooperate with defendants on scheduling his deposition and on other discovery matters is
grounds for sanctions. Thus, if defendants notice plaintiff’s deposition within 30 days of
this order and plaintiff fails to attend, or fails to provide a genuine reason why he cannot,
I will likely dismiss this action entirely as a sanction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
Additionally, if plaintiff continues to file frivolous and unsupported motions, I will consider
dismissing this case as a sanction for wasting the time and resources of the court and
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff John Gruber’s motion to compel, dkt. #138, motion regarding deposition,
dkt. #139, and motion for sanctions, dkt. #151, are DENIED.
2. Plaintiff must attend his deposition and answer questions put to him by
defendants’ counsel if properly noticed by defendants within 30 days of this order or face
the possibility that this case will be dismissed.
Entered this 11th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
BARBARA B. CRABB
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?