Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dole v. Chandler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


May 1, 2009

JOSEPH DOLE #K84446, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHANDLER, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to amend final pre-trial order (Doc. 171). Specifically, Defendants request that the Court allow them to amend the final pre-trial order by adding Thomas Maue as a witness. Maue was an eyewitness to the injuries received by Plaintiff prior to the incident in the Health Care Unit and Defendants argue he is necessary to rebut the validity of the investigation of the Illinois Department of Corrections and Illinois State Police Reports. Defendants further argue that Maue is necessary since the Court denied their motion in limine and allowed the admission of IDOC and ISP's reports.

Plaintiff has filed a response, arguing that Defendants' motion should be denied because Maue was never disclosed in Defendant's response to interrogatories and Maue was not interviewed during the investigation by ISP and IDOC. (Doc. 172). Defendants, however, point out that Maue was disclosed to Plaintiffs (Doc. 173). Maue was named in Defendant Pickering's interview with investigators in the ISP investigation report, a report which Defendants cite to in their responses to interrogatories. The interview in the report lists Maue as being on the yard to assist removing inmates.

Having reviewed the arguments of the parties, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to amend the final pre-trial order (Doc. 171). Although Plaintiff notes that this motion was filed on the Thursday before the trial scheduled to start Monday, Defendants could not have known that Maue would be needed as a witness until the Court made its ruling regarding the admissibility of the investigation reports. Further, while Plaintiff alleges that he can find no reference of Maue in this case, Defendants disclosed Maue to Plaintiffs in discovery. Therefore, Defendants are allowed to amend their witness list by adding Thomas Maue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

20090501

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.