United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO.
107), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO
DEPOSE WITNESSES (DKT. NO. 109), GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE (DKT. NO. 110), DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RECUSAL (DKT.
NO. 111), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO.
112), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY (DKT. NO. 116),
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO COMPEL
(DKT. NO. 117), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
(DKT. NO. 123), AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 126)
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Travis Delaney Williams, is proceeding pro
se on excessive force and deliberate indifference to
serious medical need claims against the defendants.
December 14, 2015, defendant Megan Keefer filed a motion for
summary judgment. Dkt. No. 48. The Kenosha County defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment on January 4, 2016. Dkt.
No. 57. Before and after these motions for summary judgment,
the parties filed numerous other motions.
March 14, 2016, in an attempt to get the case back on track,
the court entered an order resolving all of the outstanding
motions other than the defendants' motions for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 78. In that order, the court directed the
plaintiff to sign and return an authorization for the release
of medical records. Id. at 24-25. The court also
directed the plaintiff to file his response to the Kenosha
County defendants' motion for summary judgment on or
before May 16, 2016. Id. at 26. The court received
the plaintiff's response to the Kenosha County
defendants' motion for summary judgment on March 24,
2016. Dkt. Nos. 79-89.
April 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court
to recuse itself. Dkt. No. 94. The court denied this motion
on April 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 95.
plaintiff then filed a flurry of motions. On April 25, 2016,
the court received a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 107. On April
27, 2016, the court received a motion to appoint counsel to
depose witnesses, a motion to submit evidence, and a motion
for reconsideration of the court's recusal decision. Dkt.
10, 2016, the court received another motion to compel. Dkt.
No. 112. Two weeks later, on May 24, 2016, the court received
a motion to stay and a motion to supplement the
plaintiff's motion to compel. Dkt. Nos. 116-17. The
plaintiff filed yet another motion to compel on June 17,
2016. Dkt. No. 123. Three days later, he filed another motion
to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 126.
these motions were coming in, the parties completed briefing
on both of the motions for summary judgment. To the extent
that they may affect the motions for summary judgment, the
court will resolve the outstanding motions in this order and
issue separate orders regarding the defendants' motions
for summary judgment.
Motions to Compel (107, 112, 117, 123)
plaintiff has filed three motions to compel, and a motion to
supplement his motion to compel. These motions generally deal
with the same materials, including production of video
footage, grievances, and personnel records for the
defendants-particularly disciplinary records for Isaac and
Burdick. It is unclear whether the plaintiff ever served
proper discovery requests for any of these items. None of the
motions includes a certification that he made a good faith
attempt to confer with the defendants before filing the
motions, even though the court's March 14, 2016 order
described the requirements for filing a motion to compel
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and Civil Local
Rule 37. Dkt. No. 78 at 14. The plaintiff suggests that his
ongoing communications with the defendants' attorneys
regarding the case satisfy the requirement, but they do not.
The court will deny the plaintiff's motions to compel and
his motion to supplement his motion to compel.
court notes that ultimately the defendants provided many of
the materials at issue in the plaintiff's motions. The
defendants retain their objections to the defendants'
disciplinary histories and other documents from the
defendants' personnel files. The court notes that the
defendants are not responsible for the plaintiff's being
unable to have a DVD in his cell. If the plaintiff has claims
remaining after the court decides the ...