United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DKT. NO.
30); SETTING DEADLINES FOR THE PARTIES TO FILE INFORMATION
REGARDING WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE THE DEFENDANTS TO
PAY REASONABLE FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO THE PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE (DKT. NO. 36); GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEADLINES AND
RESOLVING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (DKT. NO. 37); DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SECURITY
CAMERA FOOTAGE (DKT. NO. 38); AND SETTING DISPOSITIVE MOTION
DEADLINE OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018
PAMELA, PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, a Wisconsin prisoner representing himself, filed a
motion to compel discovery on August 10, 2017. Dkt. No. 30.
On August 14, 2017, the court directed the defendants to
respond to the motion, and stayed the dispositive motion
deadline. Dkt. No. 33. The motion to compel now is fully
briefed. Since then, the plaintiff also has filed a motion
for telephone conference, dkt. no. 36; a motion for order
setting summary judgment deadlines and resolving request for
sanctions, dkt. no. 37; and another motion to compel
discovery, dkt. no. 38.
August 10, 2017, Motion to Compel Discovery
motion to compel discovery, the plaintiff asked the court (1)
to order the defendants to provide him with his health
services, psychological services, and other medical files;
(2) to deem his request for admission #10 as admitted; and
(3) to award the plaintiff costs and fees. Dkt. No. 30. In
response, counsel for the defendants avers that on August 31,
2017, she sent the plaintiff certified copies of his health
services and psychological services records from January 2015
through June 21, 2017. Dkt. No. 34 at ¶ 2. The plaintiff
acknowledges that his motion to compel the production of his
medical files is now moot. Dkt. No. 35 at 1.
regard to Request for Admission #10, the plaintiff contends
that the court should deem that request admitted, because the
defendants failed to respond to the request in a timely
manner. Dkt. No. 31 at 4. According to the plaintiff,
although the defendants timely responded to his first set of
requests for admissions, they did not admit, deny or object
to Request for Admission #10. Id.
for Admission #10, and the defendants' response, states:
10. On May 24, 2015, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff had
sustained physical injuries as a result of the use of
RESPONSE: The Defendants are unable to admit or deny this
request because the Plaintiff has not returned the signed
authorization and informed consent for use and disclosure of
medical information that was sent to him on March 2, 2017.
Because the Defendants cannot access Plaintiff's medical
information, they are unable to admit or deny this request.
Dkt. No. 32-1 at 15-16. The plaintiff states that, contrary
to the defendants' response to Request for Admission #10,
he did sign and return the consent form to allow the
defendants to access his medical records. Dkt. No. 31 at 4.
The plaintiff also argues that the defendants did not need to
reference his medical records to either admit or deny the
request, because they would have known whether or not they
were aware of his physical injuries without looking in the
plaintiff's medical files. Id.
defendants filed a declaration in response to the motion to
compel. Dkt. No. 34. In the declaration, counsel for
defendants avers that on August 31, 2017, she sent the
plaintiff the defendants' supplemental response to his
first set of requests for admissions, in which they denied
Request for Admission #10. Dkt. No. 34 ¶ 3.
reply, the plaintiff reiterates his contention that the
defendants' initial response to Request for Admission #10
was flawed. Dkt. No. 35 at 2. The plaintiff asserts that,
even if the court accepts the defendants' initial
response as reasonable, the court still should deem Request
for Admission #10 admitted, because the defendants'
supplemental response was untimely. Id. The
plaintiff states that, assuming for the sake of argument that
the defendants needed the plaintiff's medical files to
supplement their response to Request for Admission #10, they
failed to do so in a timely manner, in violation of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A). Dkt. No. 35 at 2. The
plaintiff explains that the defendants received his medical
records on June 21, 2017, but did not serve a response on the
plaintiff until August 31, 2017. Id.
matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served,
the party to whom the request is directed serves on the
requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to
the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3). In his reply, the plaintiff appears to
concede that the defendants did not have access to his
medical records when they initially responded. Dkt. No. 35 at
2. The court finds it reasonable that the defendants would
want to review the records before responding, given that
Request for Admission #10 relates to the plaintiff's
physical injuries. These defendants see many inmates and many
situations day after day; without reviewing medical records,
they may not be able to remember what they knew, and when
they knew it, about a particular inmate. The plaintiff has
not established a basis for the court to deem Request for
Admission #10 admitted under Rule 36(a)(3), because the
defendants timely responded to the initial request. The
plaintiff has also not established a basis for the court to
deem Request for Admission #10 admitted under Rule
26(e)(1)(A), because that rule does not provide for admission
of a request.
the plaintiff contends that the court should impose sanctions
and/or award expenses under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A), due to
the defendants' failure to supplement their response to
Request for Admission #10 and to produce his medical records
until after he filed his motion to compel. Dkt. No. 35 at 3.
The defendants sent the plaintiff his medical records and
they supplemented their response ...