United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DUSTIN M. HOVERMALE, Plaintiff,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant.
G. WILKERSON United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on a number of motions related to
discovery filed by Plaintiff, Dustin M. Hovermale (Docs. 85,
91, 92, and 93). The Court considers each motion in turn, as
set forth below.
to Request Evidence from Illinois Department of Human
Services and Throw Out Notebook of Kim Murk on Grounds it is
Prejudicial and Incomplete (Doc. 85)
motion, Plaintiff makes two primary requests. First, he asks
the Court to strike Kim Murk's notebook, submitted as
evidence by Defendant in support of its motion for summary
judgment (See Doc. 76-2, pp. 3-24). Second,
Plaintiff requests production (from whom, it is not clear) of
a variety of documents, including other notebooks kept by Ms.
Murk on other women trainees, employment records of other
employees of the Illinois Department of Human Services, and
names and employment records of other Social Services Career
Trainee's from January 2014 to present.
filed a motion to deny or strike Plaintiff's motion on
February 10, 2017 (Doc. 90). The Court
DENIES Defendant's motion insofar as it
is construed as a motion to strike; however, the Court will
consider Defendant's argument as an objection to
Plaintiff's motion for evidence.
regard to Plaintiff's first request to strike Kim
Murk's notebook, said request will be addressed by
District Judge Rosenstengel. Accordingly, this portion of
Plaintiff's motion will remain pending.
regard to Plaintiff's request for production of
information and documents, his motion is
DENIED. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order
entered by the undersigned on May 25, 2016, discovery in this
matter closed on November 28, 2016. There is nothing in the
docket to indicate Plaintiff sought an extension of this
deadline prior to its expiration. Now, only after Defendant
filed its motion for summary judgment does Plaintiff seek the
production of documents and other information. Not only is
said request improper (as parties engage in discovery by way
of particular mechanisms - e.g. Rules 33 and 34 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - with one another and do
not file said requests with the Court unless ordered to do
so), but it is also, quite simply, out of time. Further,
Plaintiff has not provided any explanation regarding his
delay in engaging in discovery that could be construed as
excusable neglect and, based on a plain reading of his
motion, it does not appear that he ever requested the
information now being sought from Defendant prior to the
filing of his motion.
the Court is aware that Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, he is still required to follow the Federal Rules of
Civil procedure and the District Court's Local Rules and
he is not excused from complying with his responsibilities as
a litigant. See Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541
F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). The Court also notes that it
provided Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of the pro se
litigant guide available on the Court's web page on April
29, 2016 to assist him in litigating this matter.
to Request Evidence from Illinois Department of Human
Services;Motion to Request Extension of
Discovery Period as Evidence is Crucial to
Plaintiff's Case; Request Court's
Protection to SSCT Trainer Kathy Segundo;
Court's Permission to Depose Kathy after
Assurances (Doc. 91)
filing, Plaintiff asserts that he lacks legal knowledge of
the federal courts and procedure, but indicates he needs the
following information so that he may prove his case: (1)
other notebooks maintained by Kim Murk regarding Social
Service Career Trainees; (2) Kim Murk's employment file;
and (3) a list of all Social Services Career Trainees that
were hired from January 2013 to present. Plaintiff also asks
for the Court's assurance that his SSCT trainer, Kathy
Segundo, would not suffer an adverse employment action if
deposed. The Court's reasoning set forth above is equally
applicable here. Despite Plaintiff's reference to his
lack of legal knowledge and the federal courts and procedure,
he again fails to provide an adequate reason for the Court to
allow such untimely discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
motion is DENIED.
for Request Update on Motion to Request Information from the
State (Doc. 92)
motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to help him obtain
information critical to his case and asks the Illinois
Attorney General to provide him information pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act. Plaintiff indicates he would like
a list of all individuals hired, the dates they were hired,
and when they were terminated. Plaintiff does not provide any
additional information concerning the information he seeks.
The Court applies the reasoning set forth above in regards to
Plaintiff's requests for discovery to the motion now
before the Court. The Court reiterates the untimeliness of
Plaintiff's request and his failure to follow the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to engage in discovery.
Plaintiff's motion is therefore DENIED.
for Questions on Attorney General Office Notice of Appearance
List of Attorney's Working on Case (Doc.
motion, Plaintiff complains that a number of individuals on
the electronic list for receipt of court documents have not
filed their notice of appearance. Plaintiff complains that
these individuals failed to follow proper procedure and, for
this reason, the Court should allow Plaintiff to receive a
list of all Social Services Career Trainees and their dates
of hire. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
With regard to Plaintiff's complaints about the
individuals receiving notice of electronic filings in this
matter, Plaintiff is advised that these individuals have not
violated any procedural rule by not entering their appearance
in this matter as they have not filed any document or
appeared before the Court. Indeed, individuals other than
attorneys representing parties in a case ...