Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Santos v. Kartman

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

June 30, 2017

JOSE LUIS SANTOS, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK KARTMAN AND LORIE IVERSON, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 15)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         In his 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 accordingly.
REQUEST NUMBER 2: Identify and Produce any and all evidence of the investigation showing what Santos stated to the investigator.
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.

         The 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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.