United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
G. WILKERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24, 2017, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was
granted leave to depose parties and non-parties provided that
he acquire a stenographer and serve the necessary notices
(Doc. 138). Plaintiff was directed to provide information to
the Court by June 30, 2017 so that the Court could assist in
scheduling the depositions. Plaintiff was informed, however,
that payment for the stenographer and any other costs of the
deposition would be his responsibility. The deadline for
Plaintiff to provide the information was extended to July 27,
2017 and the discovery deadline was extended to September 1,
2017 (Doc. 144).
now states that he wishes to use “Joan, ” the
stenographer who took his deposition, and that her fee is
$200.00 per hour. Plaintiff has not indicated whether he has
reached an agreement with Joan or whether he has prepaid
Joan's fee. He also has not provided her full name or
address nor has he submitted the notices required by Rule 30.
Plaintiff is again reminded that it is his obligation to
furnish the Court with the stenographer's contact
information and to forward to the Court acknowledgement from
the stenographer that she agrees to transcribe the
depositions that Plaintiff requests. In any future motion,
Plaintiff shall attach the letter from the stenographer
providing her contact information and agreement. Plaintiff is
GRANTED until September 15, 2017 to provide
this information to the Court. Once the information is
received, depositions will be scheduled. All depositions
shall be concluded by October 16, 2017.
Plaintiff's motion to extend deadline is accordingly
GRANTED IN PART (Doc. 145). It is unlikely
that this deadline will be extended absent extraordinary
remaining motions are DENIED. The only
deadlines in this matter are the October 16, 2017 discovery
deadline and September 8, 2017 dispositive motion filing
deadline. If Plaintiff requires more time to file responses
to motions, he may file a motion. The motion for court order
is DENIED (Doc. 146).
motion to compel is DENIED (Doc. 147).
Plaintiff states that he requires answers to requests to
produce 1, 4, 5, and 7 as to Defendant Lee and all requests,
except 6, as to Defendant Spiller. He further states that
Defendant Lee has not responded to requests to admit.
Defendants timely filed answers to Plaintiff's requests
to admit on February 17, 2017 (Docs. 117, 124). The Court has
reviewed Plaintiff's requests to produce and finds the
answers sufficient. The requests submitted to Defendant
Spiller are irrelevant and/or overly broad. Plaintiff seeks
all grievance he has written, information on other inmates,
information on the activities of intel officers, and all
electronic information regarding himself, among other things.
These requests are not tied to Plaintiff's claims in this
lawsuit and Plaintiff does not explain how they are relevant
or how their production is proportionate to the needs of this
case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).
Plaintiff's requests to produce directed to Defendant
Lee, Plaintiff has not indicated how any of the documents are
relevant to his claim.
“motion[s] to add intel/internal affairs officer . . .
.” are DENIED (Docs. 150, 155). To the
extent that Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint in order
to add new claims against Officer Young and the Assistant
Warden of Operations, he should have filed a motion to amend
and included an entire amended pleading as required by Local
Rule 15.1. In any event, the deadline for amending pleadings
was February 10, 2017 (Doc. 98). Plaintiff has offered no
convincing reason why that deadline should be extended. He
states that he “just found out” about the Warden
and did not know Officers Young's name. The Court notes
that Plaintiff did not assert a claim against any John Doe
defendant in his amended complaint (Doc. 107) for whom
Officer Young would be substituted.
remaining motions (Docs. 148, 152, and 153), Plaintiff
complains that he is not receiving legal mail, that the mail
he sends for filing with the Clerk of Court are not being
filed, and that he has not received file stamped copies of
his motions. In relation to these motions, Plaintiff seeks
counsel and an injunction to prevent further tampering with
his mail. As to these last two requests, Plaintiff must file
separate motions for injunctive relief (that complies with
Rule 65) and for recruitment of counsel. As to the former
requests, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
send to Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet. Plaintiff shall
inform the Court if any motion he has submitted has not been
filed in this matter and shall provide a copy of that motion.
Plaintiff is informed that only matters related to this
particular case will be considered by the undersigned
regardless of the number of cases that Plaintiff may be
litigating in this District Court. As such, the “motion
for status update” (Doc. 153), with the case number
15-cv-1073, is deemed MOOT.
above reasons, the motion to extend deadline is
GRANTED IN PART (Doc. 145); the motion for
Court Order is DENIED (Doc. 146); the motion
to compel is DENIED (Doc. 147); the motion
for copy is DENIED (Doc. 148); the motion to
add defendant is DENIED (Doc. 150); the
motion for status is DENIED (Doc. 152); the
motion for status is MOOT (Doc. 153); and,
the motion to add is DENIED (Doc. 155).
Clerk to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet. Plaintiff
shall provide the information outlined above in this Order