Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Queen v. W.I.C, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 16, 2017

JORDAN QUEEN Plaintiff,
v.
W.I.C., INC. d/b/a SNIPER TREESTANDS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          DAVID R HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams (Doc. 134). Judge Williams recommends that plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's pleadings directed against Defendant WW Industrial Corp.[1] be granted and that defendant's answer be stricken. The Report and Recommendation was entered on December 13, 2016. Defendant filed its objection to the Report and Recommendation on December 27, 2016 (Doc. 142). Based on the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff Jordan Queen brought the present lawsuit alleging that he was injured when his tree stand used for deer hunting collapsed. (Doc. 2). The stand was a Scout Model STLS41 tree stand distributed by the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that on October 12, 2013, while he was at the top of the stand's ladder, the ladder bent, causing him to fall. As a result of the fall, plaintiff claims that he suffered serious injuries, including broken bones in his right leg, a shattered right ankle, and damage to his ligaments, tendons, and joints. Based on said injuries, plaintiff alleges that he incurred medical expenses and lost wages, and that he will continue to lose wages, due to the debilitating condition of his right leg and ankle.

         On July 15, 2016, plaintiff filed his second motion to strike Defendant WW Industrial Corp's pleadings (Doc. 95).[2] The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Williams and a hearing was set on the issue (Doc. 100). The involved parties filed briefing and Magistrate Williams conducted a hearing on the issue (Docs. 101, 102, & 111). At the hearing, Judge Williams heard testimony from Nathan Stieren, owner and CEO of WW, and heard argument from the parties. The motion was taken under advisement.

         Following the hearing defendant filed a motion for leave to file the affidavit of Andrew Ryan in support of its response in opposition (Doc. 155). Judge Williams granted the motion and then issued the Report at issue (Doc. 134). In addition to the facts stated above, the court incorporates by reference the summary of the relevant background stated in Judge Williams' Report (Doc. 34, pgs. 4-10).

         III. Standard of Review

         The Court's review of the Report is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court make a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written objections have been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In making this determination, the Court must look at all the evidence contained in the record and give fresh consideration to those issues for which specific objection has been made. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the findings of the R&R for which no objections have been made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.140, 149-52 (1985).

         For the duration of the discovery process, parties are required to supplement or correct any written discovery responses and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) disclosures “in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, ” and where the other party has not been made aware of the new or corrected information. Fed. R. Civ. P.26(b)(1). Failure to comply with Rule 26 requirements may result in a party being subjected to sanctions. As to the imposition of sanctions, Rule 37(c) states:

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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