United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
TRAVIS D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
DR. SALAM SYED, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
STEPHEN L. CROCKER MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Travis D. Williams, who is currently incarcerated at the
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (“WSPF”) is
proceeding against defendants, all employees at Columbia
Correctional Institution (“Columbia”), where
Williams was incarcerated previously, on First, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims related to his medical care and
placement within the prison. Williams has filed a motion to
compel (dkt. #43), lodging numerous complaints about
defendants' discovery requests. For the reasons that
follow, I am granting in part and denying in part this
claims that defendants' responses to his first two sets
of discovery requests have been inadequate and he seeks the
requested documents as well as sanctions. I will begin with
two points: First, I am not going to sanction defense
counsel. Williams accuses defense counsel of lying in the
discovery responses, but he has presented no evidence in
support, so I will not address these assertions further.
Second, Williams generally takes issue with defendants'
objections to many of Williams' discovery requests as
unduly burdensome, overbroad and vague, but these objections
were reasonable. Indeed, many of Williams's requests seek
documents that span from 2015 to 2018, and do not explain how
the documents are related to his particular claims against
the defendants in this lawsuit. Williams's claims in this
lawsuit relate only to the events that took place while he
was incarcerated at CCI. Since Williams left CCI in April of
2017, I generally agree that Williams' records from WSPF
are not relevant to his claims in this lawsuit.
Williams' specific complaints, he points out that
defendants declined to respond to his first set of discovery
requests, which is true. Williams served discovery requests
prior to the court's scheduling conference, so defense
counsel responded that, in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(d), defendants would respond within 30
days of the scheduling conference. (See Pl. Ex. 1
(dkt. 44-1).) That response was not improper and in any
event, any complaint about it is moot since defendants timely
responded to Williams' second requests for production.
also complains about defendants' response to his second
set of requests for documents, which I will walk through by
No. 1, requesting video footage from CCI from May 25, 2016,
July 2016 (showing that defendant nurse DeYoung flicked him
off), and October 3 2016.
objected to the request as vague and confusing, but also
responded that “there is no video footage of Plaintiff
from October 3, 2016 or May 25, 2016.” (Pl. Ex. 2 (dkt.
44-2) at 1.) Williams might be frustrated that defendants
were unable to produce video evidence, but he has not
submitted any evidence suggesting that the
video footage from those days and that
incident actually exists, much less that defendants are
improperly withholding it.
No. 3, requesting incident report 2016-237734 of the October
3 2016 incident of Plaintiff flipping over his
produced that incident report, but Williams now complains
that defendants did not product other incident reports as
well. Defendants were only obliged to produce the incident
report that Williams requested, and they did so. If Williams
wants another report, he must request it separately.
No. 4, seeking DOC 1008 unit area pass logs from May 5th 2015
through May 2017, and WSPF pass logs from May 2017 through
objected to this request as overly broad and not proportional
to the needs of the case, since Williams was allowed to
proceed on events that took place when Williams was
incarcerated at CCI, not WSPF. Defendants further responded
that there were no documents from CCI that would be
responsive, representing that CCI does not retain unit pass
logs. In reply, Williams insists he needs the logs so that he
can identify the dates he was scheduled for appointments, by
provider. Defendants cannot produce what they do not possess.
As such, since defendants have provided Williams a copy of
his medical records, Williams should review those materials
for the information he seeks about his
5 and 6, seeking Williams' medical and mental health
files from WSPF, from March 2015 through 2018.
initially objected to these requests because Williams had not
signed a medical release that granted defendants access to
his medical and mental health records. After Williams signed
the authorization defendants provided Williams a copy of his
records. Accordingly, this issue is moot.
7-10 seek all of Williams' complaints he filed at CCI and
WSPF from May 5, 2015, through July 2017; DOC 660 forms of
CCI unit absence records from March 2015 through 2017;
Interview/Information Request Forms Williams submitted from