United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
LYNDSEY J. PITTMAN, Plaintiff,
CITY OF MOUNT STERLING, ILLINOIS and CHASE FOX, individually and in his capacity as police officer with City of Mount Sterling, Illinois Police Department, Defendants.
SCHANZLE-HASKINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Chase Fox's
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide More Complete Responses
to Written Discovery, to Compel Plaintiff to be Produced For
Deposition, to Bar Plaintiff From Calling Any Non-Disclosed
Witnesses, and to Extend Deadline for Defendants to Disclose
Expert Witnesses (d/e 24) (Motion). The Motion is ALLOWED.
Defendant Fox's second motion to compel. Defendant Fox
filed a prior Motion to Compel which the Plaintiff did not
oppose, and which the Court allowed. Unopposed Motion to
Compel Plaintiff to Answer Outstanding Written
Discovery by October 30, 2017 (d/e 20); Text
Order entered October 27, 2017. Plaintiff did
not oppose the prior motion and does not oppose this Motion.
counsel explained the failure to comply with this Court's
Scheduling Order (d/e 15), Text Order entered October 27,
2017, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:
and her counsel have not intentionally delayed in furnishing
the foregoing information. Rather, of no fault of Plaintiff
or any of the Defendants, Plaintiff's counsel has had
unexpected professional obligations arise, in addition to the
regular demands of practicing law which each attorney faces.
Plaintiff's counsel, upon short notice, learned of an
opening for public office (Circuit Judge), for which
Plaintiff's counsel has been faced with deadlines and
demands related thereto. Plaintiff's counsel understands
his obligations to his client, opposing counsel, and this
Court. Plaintiff's counsel determined it would not be
practical or in Plaintiff's interest for Plaintiff's
counsel to seek leave to withdraw from this matter, which may
have necessitated further delay.
Plaintiff Lyndsey J. Pittman's Response to Defendant
Chase Fox's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Provide More Complete Responses to Written
Discovery, to Compel Plaintiff to be Produced for
Deposition, to Bar Plaintiff From Calling Any
Non-Disclosed Witnesses, and to Extend Deadline for
Defendants to Disclose Expert Witnesses (d/e 26)
(Response), at 2.
states that she has supplemented her discovery responses and
her Rule 26 disclosures, copies of which are attached to her
Response. She lists no expert witnesses in her Rule 26
supplemental disclosures attached to the response. She,
therefore, may not call any expert witnesses. She lists the
physician that treated her at the emergency room, Dr.
Jennifer Sharp, M.D., as a fact witness, not an expert
witness. See Response, attached Rule 26
Disclosures. The parties can address the scope of her
fact testimony with the District Court prior to trial.
also states that she will make herself and her mother Dianne
Sargent available for depositions in the next 45 days after
February 7, 2018, the filing date of the Response. By the
Court's calculation, 45 days after February 7, 2018 is
March 24, 2018. Plaintiff and her mother should make
themselves available sooner than March 24, 2018. The Court
directs that Plaintiff make herself available, and cause her
mother to be available, on or before March 9, 2018 to be
deposed. Because more time was granted to appear at a
deposition than requested by Defendant Fox, the Court will
also extend the Defendants' deadline to disclose expert
witnesses to April 2, 2018 rather than the requested date of
March 19, 2018.
Court hereby allows Defendant Fox's second motion to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states,
If the motion [to compel] is granted--or if the disclosure or
requested discovery is provided after the motion was
filed--the court must, after giving
an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose
conduct necessitated the motion, the . . . attorney advising
that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable
expenses incurred in making the motion, including
attorney's fees. But the court must not order this
(i) the movant filed the motion before
attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or
discovery without court action;
(ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure,
response, or objection was substantially ...