Walton, David et al v. Perkins, Scott et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying as moot plaintiff David Lee Walton's 51 Motion to Compel. Defendants' motion to amend their responses to plaintiff's October 19, 2018 requests for admissions, dkt. #54, is GRANTED only with respect to their responses served on December 10, 2018. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 1/18/2019. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAVID CHRISTOPHER LEE WALTON,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-956-bbc
v.
LIEUTENANT STAN HENDRICKSON,
SERGEANT RYAN HALLMAN and
SERGEANT PATRICA FISH,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se prisoner David Walton is proceeding on Fourteenth Amendment claims that
staff at the Monroe County Jail failed to provide him access to medical treatment and
subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was incarcerated on
a probation hold in June 2015. Before the court are (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel
defendants to respond to his fifth request for production of documents and additional
requests for admissions, which plaintiff mailed to defendants on October 19, 2018, dkt.
#51, and (2) defendants’ motion to amend their discovery responses, dkt. #54.
Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on November 29, 2018, arguing that defendants
had not filed their discovery responses within the 30-day deadline for doing so.

On

December 10, 2018, defendants responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests and his motion,
explaining that they missed the response deadline because their lead attorney in this case
retired on November 30, 2018 and failed to docket the response deadline on the law firm’s
calendar. Dkt. #54. In addition, defendants “move[d] the Court to withdraw or amend the

1

responses to Plaintiff’s most recent set of requests for admissions and allow the Defendants’
respective responses and objections to stand.” Id. at 3. As plaintiff points out in his reply
brief, defendants’ request is confusing. However, I assume that defendants are asking the
court to accept its late-file discovery responses and deny plaintiff’s motion to compel as
moot.
Although plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion to amend their discovery responses,
he has not shown that the approximate three-week delay caused him any prejudice. As
defendants point out, plaintiff’s requests for admission are largely duplicative of his past
requests. In addition, plaintiff received the responses well before defendants filed their
motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2019. Therefore, I am denying plaintiff’s
motion to compel as moot and granting defendants’ motion to amend their responses to
plaintiff’s October 19, 2018 requests for admissions with their December 10, 2018
responses.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff David Lee Walton’s motion to compel, dkt. #51, is
DENIED as moot. Defendants’ motion to amend their responses to plaintiff’s October 19,

2

2018 requests for admissions, dkt. #54, is GRANTED only with respect to their responses
served on December 10, 2018.
Entered this 18th day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
____________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3