United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTFF'S
REQUEST FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REGARDING DEPOSITION (DKT.
PAMELA PEPPER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 1, 2019, the court granted the defendant's motion
to extend the discovery deadline to December 30, 2019 because
the plaintiff had not provided written discovery in advance
of her deposition scheduled for October 28, 2019. Dkt. No.
32. On November 12, 2019, the plaintiff, representing
herself, filed a request for a telephonic conference
regarding her deposition. Dkt. No. 33. The motion contains
one sentence: “Motion requesting for Telephone
Conference with Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper reference to
Deposition scheduled. Pursuant LR 16-2(c).” Dkt. No.
November 15, 2019, the defendant filed a letter, indicating
that because the plaintiff's motion didn't contain
any details, the defendant didn't know what her issue was
with the deposition and why she had asked for a hearing. Dkt.
No. 34. The defendant asked the court to deny the motion
until the parties could meet and confer, to try to resolve
whatever issue the plaintiff had. Id.
days later, the court received a handwritten letter from the
plaintiff. Dkt. No. 35. She said that she was asking for a
telephone conference ahead of the second part of her
deposition, scheduled for November 22, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
Id. at 1. She said that at the first part of her
deposition, one of the defendant's lawyers had entered an
exhibit from a twenty-year-old civil case that the plaintiff
claims contained false information. Id. at 1-2.
plaintiff goes on for six pages, recounting various things
that she says counsel did that she believes were
intimidating, inaccurate, irrelevant and harassing. The
plaintiff cites “Local Rule 30-6, ” and says that
in that rule the court “makes itself available to
immediately intervene if” the parties have a dispute.
Id. at 3. She also references Local Rule 16-2(c).
Id. at 4.
are several problems with the documents the plaintiff has
filed. Her motion consisted of a single sentence, and did not
explain why she wanted a hearing. It did not comply with this
court's Civil Local Rule 7(a), which requires every
motion “to state the statute or rule pursuant to which
it is made, ” as well as a supporting memorandum or a
certificate that no memorandum is necessary.
defendant responded that it was willing to meet and confer
with the plaintiff to try to work out whatever problem might
exist. Dkt. No. 34. Instead of doing that, the plaintiff
responded with a list of complaints about defense counsel.
That response violates this court's Civil Local Rule 37,
which says that any party seeking to compel disclosure or
discovery (or, in the plaintiff's case, object to
discovery) must file a motion, accompanied by a written
certification that the party “in good faith has
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party
failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to
obtain it without court action, ” but that the parties
couldn't reach agreement. The plaintiff has not provided
such a certificate (despite the defendant having offered to
meet and confer).
plaintiff also refers in her response to Local Rule 30-6.
This court does not have a local rule 30-6. This court's
local rules are on its web site,
is a Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
that relates to depositions, but that rule says nothing about
the court making itself immediately available to resolve
disputes. It provides a procedure for making a motion to
terminate a deposition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3), but the
plaintiff has not followed that procedure. This court does
have a Civil Local Rule 16, and there is a Federal Rule
16(c), but it has to do with pretrial conferences, not
plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Even though she apparently
hasn't been able to find a lawyer, she must comply with
the court's local rules and with the Federal procedural
rules. If she wants the court to do something,
she must file a motion that complies with the court's
local and procedural rules. She must make good-faith attempts
to work out discovery issues with the defendant's lawyers
before filing anything with the court.
court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the
plaintiffs request for telephone conference regarding
deposition. Dkt. No. 33.
 At the scheduling conference on March
20, 2019, the plaintiff indicated that she was trying to find
a lawyer and expected to ...