Miner, Kathryn v. State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying plaintiff Kathryn Miner's 14 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 1/2/2019. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - KATHRYN MINER, on behalf of
CALVIN SMITH (son),
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
17-cv-734-bbc
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
and CATHY JESS, Secretary,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff Kathryn Miner is proceeding in this case on a claim that she has been
barred from visiting her incarcerated son, Calvin Smith, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Now before the court is plaintiff’s motion to
compel. Dkt. #14. Plaintiff states that she served discovery requests on defendants in June
2018, requesting defendants to produce, among other things, (1) any document in which
Mark Weisgerber explained to plaintiff that she could visit her son; (2) any document
providing a definition of mental or physical impairment that differs from that stated in the
Code of Federal Regulations; and (3) medical or scientific evidence showing that it is
acceptable for a person with a pacemaker to go through a medical detector or hand-held
wand despite a medical provider’s contrary advice. Defendants object to plaintiff’s motion,
stating that they responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests on September 20, 2018. Dkt.
#15.

1

Plaintiff did not file a reply brief in support of her motion to compel, so it is not clear
whether she still believes defendants have failed to respond to all of her discovery requests.
After reviewing defendants’ discovery responses, dkt. #15-1, I see nothing obviously
inadequate or improper about the responses. With respect to the specific requests identified
in plaintiff’s motion to compel, defendants responded that they have no documents
responsive to the requests and that the Code of Federal Regulations speaks for itself.
Plaintiff has provided no reason for me to doubt the truthfulness of defendants’ responses.
Accordingly, I will deny plaintiff’s motion to compel.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Kathryn Miner’s motion to compel, dkt. #14, is
DENIED.
Entered this 2d day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2