United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
JOHN V. GROSS, JR., Plaintiff,
B. EDGE, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
STEPHEN L. CROCKER MAGISTRATE JUDGE
se plaintiff John V. Gross is proceeding in this civil
lawsuit on claims that his medical care at the Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility (WSPF) have violated his rights under
the Eighth Amendment and state law. The court granted Gross
leave to proceed against thirteen defendants. The Wisconsin
Department of Justice represents twelve of them because they
are either Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) or
University of Wisconsin employees (the “State
Defendants”). Defendant #13, Tanya Bonson, is a nurse
practitioner who has her own lawyer.
12, 2018, three days before the dispositive motion filing
deadline, Gross filed a series of motions seeking: assistance
in recruiting counsel (dkts. 32, 45), to compel disclosure of
his medical records (dkt. 40), an extension of the expert
disclosure deadline (dkt. 41), to strike defendants'
experts (dkt. 43), to take depositions (dkt. 44), and to stay
all deadlines (dkt. 46). On June 15, 2018, Bonson filed a
motion for summary judgment, and the State Defendants filed a
motion for partial summary judgment.
give Gross some of the relief he requests by extending the
expert disclosure and summary judgment deadlines, but I am
denying his remaining requests.
to compel (dkt. 40)
moved to compel responses to a document request asking for
(1) copies of his medical records dating back to 2012, and
(2) defendants' personnel files. The State Defendants
opposes both parts of this motion. With respect to
Gross's personnel record requests, the State Defendants
responded to this request by providing Gross the position
descriptions for the State Defendants and informing Gross
that these defendants have not been disciplined. Gross has
not suggested that these responses were inadequate, so I am
denying his motion to compel additional disclosures, with
this direction for clarification by the State: it disclose to
Gross if any of the State Defendants ever have been
disciplined for conduct or behavior substantially similar to
the conduct that is alleged against them in the instant
the medical record request, the State Defendants respond that
they have permitted Gross to conduct a medical record review
and request his own copies. Furthermore, because Gross
indicates that he may send his medical records to potential
experts, the State Defendants report that they will provide
Gross's medical records in the DOC's possession if
Gross executes a proper release authorizing disclosure. With
respect to the release, Gross indicates that he has signed
one and is attempting to work with defense counsel.
respect to his access to his medical file, Gross replies that
he receives very limited periods of time in which to review
his medical records and cannot afford to make copies of the
records he needs. Even if this is true, I am not compelling
defendants to turn over all of his medical records from 2012
forward. For one, while Gross may want to provide as much
context about his condition as possible, his claims in this
lawsuit arose from events that took place beginning in 2015,
and I not persuaded that Gross needs all of his
previous medical records to respond to defendants'
motions for summary judgment. Furthermore, in support of
their summary judgment motions, the State Defendants'
submitted Exhibits 100 (dkts. 61-1 and 62-2) and Exhibit 102
(dkt. 62-1), which include over 300 pages of Gross's
medical records and Gross's records related to his
University of Wisconsin visits. Because Gross has received
these materials, I am confident that Gross has
sufficient access to his medical records to litigate this
case. Accordingly, I am denying his motion to compel.
for extension (dkt. 41) and to strike (dkt. 43)
moves for an extension of time to identify his expert
witnesses and to strike defendants' expert witnesses.
With respect to his extension request, Gross recognizes that
the deadline for disclosing experts was March16, 2018, but
explains that his medical care claims may hinge on expert
testimony and that he has been in contact with two potential
companies that may be able to provide opinions about his
medical records. Gross says that he needs more time because
he needs to forward those materials to those companies. While
the State Defendants take issue with Gross's delay, they
do not oppose this request so long as they also receive
additional time and a chance to amend their expert
disclosures and/or file additional dispositive motions based
on the disclosures of such experts.
State is correct: Gross should have been more diligent, and
his explanation for why he waited this long is unpersuasive.
It is still not clear if he actually has a commitment from
anyone actually to provide expert opinions in this case. Even
so I will give him one more month: his new, final deadline to
disclose experts is August 17, 2018. Gross
must immediately direct his experts to contact the attorney
for the State Defendants to arrange for them to receive the
materials necessary for their review. If Gross actually
provides expert disclosures by August 17, 2018, then the
State Defendants may request the opportunity for supplemental
disclosures and briefing.
denying Gross's motion to strike defendants' experts.
Gross seeks to strike defendants' experts because they
are defendants, and thus their opinions would be
self-serving and biased. Gross is free to argue these points
at trial, but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) does
not prohibit parties from serving as expert witnesses, and
Gross has not articulated an alternative basis to strike
to take deposition (dkt. 44)
seeks to take the depositions of all of the
defendants because he believes that their written discovery
responses have not been sufficiently helpful. Defendants'
attorneys respond that they will produce defendants for
depositions upon receiving a proper notice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b). Therefore, I am
denying this motion as unnecessary. If this motion really is
about money, then Gross is out of luck. It is Gross's
obligation to pay the court reporter costs for each
deposition. Further, If Gross seeks to subpoena a non-party
for a deposition, then he will also be ...