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.

Howard v. Schrubbe

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

August 4, 2017

JOSHUA HOWARD, Plaintiff,
v.
BELINDA SCHRUBBE, TODD CALLISTER, AND JOHN O'DONOVAN, Defendants.

         ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 72); STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DKT. NO. 68); ORDERING THAT PLAINTIFF MAY FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS DESCRIBED IN THIS ORDER BY SEPTEMBER 1, 2017; ORDERING THAT DEFENDANTS MAY FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY MATERIALS BY SEPTEMBER 11, 2017; AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY MATERIALS (DKT. NO. 72)

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On March 1, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 55. The plaintiff filed a response on May 23, 2017, dkt. no. 66, and he filed a supplemental declaration on May 30, 2017, dkt. no. 71. The defendants have filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response to their motion for summary judgment, and to stay the defendants' deadline to file reply materials. Dkt. No. 72.

         I. THE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE

         The plaintiff's May 23, 2017 response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment consists of a brief, objections to the defendants' proposed findings of fact, proposed findings of fact, a declaration, and about 850 pages of exhibits.[1] Dkt. Nos. 66-69. On May 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a letter regarding modifications to his medical record exhibits, dkt. no. 70, along with a supplemental declaration in support of his motion for summary judgment, dkt. no. 71. The plaintiff's letter states in relevant part:

On 5.18, I sent several hundred pages to the library to be e-filed to the Court and on 5.23 I received copies of the originals I had placed in the institution mailbox. When I spoke to the librarian on 5.26 he informed me that WCI Litigation Coordinator Pusich had taken the original documents because I had altered some of the medical records that I had submitted to the Court. While I assumed that any modifications I made to my exhibits were obvious and would not be construed as original medical documents I am submitting a supplemental declaration to clarify matters.

Dkt. No. 70. The plaintiff's supplemental declaration explains the alterations he made to his medical record exhibits. Dkt. No. 71.

         II. THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

         On June 2, 2017, the defendants filed their motion to strike. Dkt. No. 72. The defendants stated two grounds in support of their motion. First, they stated that the plaintiff's summary judgment response contains 200 additional proposed findings of fact, in violation of Civil Local Rule 56(b)(2)(B)(ii), which sets a limit of 100 proposed facts for non-movants. Dkt. No. 72 at 2. Second, the defendants stated:

4. Plaintiff submitted a supplemental declaration on May 30. In that, Plaintiff admits that he “created” over 70 pages of exhibits for his declaration by taking copies of DOC records and altering them by “adding relevant information from other sources.” Specifically, Plaintiff admits that he submitted the following DOC medical records with additional information added by the Plaintiff via typewriter:
• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of Exhibit 2009
• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of Exhibit 2010
• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of Exhibit 2011
• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of ...

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.