Johnson, Ivan v. Schrubbe, Belinda et al

Filing 65

ORDER directing defendant Nancy Garcia to respond to plaintiff Ivan Johnson's motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 64 , by July 30, 2020. Specifically, Garcia is directed to respond to Johnson's allegations that the body-camera footage she h as providedthrough discovery has been altered and that the sound has been deleted.The pretrial submission deadlines are STRUCK. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crockerwill set new pretrial submission deadlines at the July 24, 2020 scheduling conference.The remainder of Johnson's motion, Dkt. 64 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/16/2020. (jef),(ps)

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

IVAN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
17-cv-332-jdp

NANCY GARCIA,
Defendant.

Pro se plaintiff Ivan Johnson, an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI),
asks me to reconsider my order denying his motion to compel body-camera footage and other
written discovery. Dkt. 64. Regarding the footage, I denied Johnson’s motion as moot because
defendant Nancy Garcia, a CCI nurse, said that she had located the footage that Johnson had
requested and that he would be able to view it soon. Dkt. 61. Now, Johnson says that he has
viewed the footage but that Garcia has “altered the video and deleted the sound,” and he asks
to compel the unedited footage, including audio. Dkt. 64, at 1. It is unclear from his motion
whether Johnson accuses Garcia of altering the video in any other way than deleting the sound.
In any event, I will give Garcia a short time to respond to Johnson’s allegations before I rule
on Johnson’s motion regarding the body-camera footage. But I will deny his motion regarding
his written discovery requests because he raises no new arguments regarding those requests.
Johnson raises several other issues in his motion. He asks why the parties’ pretrial
submissions are due on July 24, 2020, even though his trial date has been struck. He says that
he cannot meet this deadline because he has not yet received the body-camera footage that he
has requested. I left the pretrial submission deadlines in place to ensure that this case would
be ready to proceed to trial as soon as a trial date is set. But there will be room in the schedule

for at least a slight change to these deadlines. So I will strike the pretrial submission deadlines.
At the July 24, 2020 scheduling conference, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker will set new
pretrial submission deadlines along with a new trial date.
Johnson says that he needs more time to obtain and disclose another expert witness in
addition to the experts that he has already disclosed. But the expert witness disclosure deadlines
were set well in advance in the amended scheduling order, and the parties were cautioned in
that order that there would be no extensions of this deadline. Dkt. 43, at 3–4. Johnson says
that he needs an extension because he is still awaiting an order on his motion to compel. But
the disclosure deadline was set before the discovery cutoff in the amended scheduling order
because parties can disclose their experts before discovery is completed. And Johnson doesn’t
explain why the footage would change who he would choose as an expert witness. So I will
deny Johnson’s request for an extension.
Johnson asks to file an interlocutory appeal regarding his motion to compel, and he asks
me to strike all deadlines during this appeal. But “discovery orders, being interlocutory,
generally are not appealable in the federal court system.” Am. Bank v. City of Menasha, 627 F.3d
261, 264 (7th Cir. 2010). This is because they are subject to deferential review of the district
court’s discretion and would virtually always be affirmed by the court of appeals. Reise v. Bd. of
Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 957 F.2d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1992). My denial of Johnson’s motion
to compel is not one of the rare types of orders that would justify an exception to this rule. See
Am. Bank, 627 F.3d at 264. So I will deny this request.
As an alternative to his request to file an interlocutory appeal, Johnson asks me to
substitute another judge in this case. He says that I have treated him unfairly as a pro se litigant
in his discovery disputes with Garcia by expecting him to comply with the Federal Rules of

2

Civil Procedure. But pro se parties must still comply with procedural rules. McMasters v. United
States, 260 F.3d 814, 818 (7th Cir. 2001). I am sympathetic to Johnson’s position as a pro se
litigant, but the Rules ensure that both sides receive a fair trial, so I expect Johnson to do his
best to comply with them. He also says that I showed bias when I denied his motion to compel
because I should not have taken Garcia at her word when she said that she would turn over the
body-camera footage by June 30, 2020. But I do not grant motions to compel just because one
party thinks that the other party may not provide requested discovery, and Johnson’s
allegations regarding Garcia’s supposed alteration of the body-camera footage and removal of
the audio were unclear from his prior filings. Johnson hasn’t identified any grounds that would
justify my recusal, so I will deny his request.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Nancy Garcia is directed to respond to plaintiff Ivan Johnson’s motion
for reconsideration, Dkt. 64, by July 30, 2020. Specifically, Garcia is directed to
respond to Johnson’s allegations that the body-camera footage she has provided
through discovery has been altered and that the sound has been deleted.
2. The pretrial submission deadlines are STRUCK. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker
will set new pretrial submission deadlines at the July 24, 2020 scheduling
conference.
3. The remainder of Johnson’s motion, Dkt. 64, is DENIED.
Entered July 16, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3