United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT.
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jose Luis Santos is a Wisconsin state prisoner representing
himself. On December 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge William E.
Duffin screened the plaintiff's complaint, and allowed
him to proceed on equal protection and retaliation claims
based on allegations that the defendants fired him from his
prison job because of his race and/or in retaliation for his
refusal to provide information about a gang-related
investigation. Dkt. No. 8 at 7-9. On January 11, 2017, the
case was reassigned to this court because the defendants did
not consent to the magistrate judge presiding over the case.
The plaintiff has filed a motion to compel. Dkt. No. 15. The
court will deny the motion.
brief in support of his motion to compel, the plaintiff
states that on February 20, 2017, he filed a Request for
Admissions and Production of Documents. Dkt. No. 16 at 1. His
motion relates to the defendants' responses to his first
three requests for production of documents:
REQUEST NUMBER 1: Identify and Produce any and all
documents showing that Santos played some kind of role in the
incident that took place and why plaintiff lost his job in
part because he had played a role and had significant
information regarding the altercation.
RESPONSE NUMBER 1: Please the attached documents:
1) Memorandum to Jose Santos from Security Director Kartman,
dated June 14, 2016 (1 page);
2) Offender Work/Program/Placement (DOC-1408 form), date
signed July 20, 2016 (1 page).
There is also an 8-page Division of Adult Institutions
investigative file that is responsive to this request. The
file is strictly confidential for security reasons, as it
relates to the investigation of gang activities and contains
notes of confidential interviews. Counsel for Defendants
OBJECTS to producing any part of the investigative file under
any circumstances and will seek a protective order to that
effect if necessary. To the extent that the file contains
information relevant to Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff may
serve interrogatories on Security Director Kartmann pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 requesting information regarding the loss
of Plaintiff's job. This response is not a promise that
Mr. Kartmann will be able to fully answer any interrogatory
Plaintiff serves for the same reason that the investigative
file cannot be produced, but any interrogatories will be
reviewed with counsel and Defendants will respond
REQUEST NUMBER 2: Identify and Produce any and all
evidence of the investigation showing what Santos stated to
RESPONSE NUMBER 2: See OBJECTION in Response No. 1.
REQUEST NUMBER 3: Identify and Produce any and all
evidence as to why Santos was fired from his job on 6-14-16.
RESPONSE NUMBER 3: See Response No. 1.
Dkt. No. 17-1 at 1-2.
plaintiff argues that in objecting to his discovery requests,
the defendants are trying to deprive him of the discovery
that is most relevant to his claims. Dkt. No. 16 at 3. He
says that if he does not have this information, it will be
impossible for him to “fight this case, ...