United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on an Objection filed by Plaintiff
Tiberius Mays (“Mays”) regarding one of
Magistrate Reona J. Daly's rulings. Specifically, Mays
objects to Judge Daly's order denying his request to
reopen discovery and retake his deposition (Doc. 99).
an Illinois Department of Corrections inmate, was
incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center
(“Robinson”) at the time he initiated this
pro se action (Doc. 1). Mays proceeds on the
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Shah and Ritz for denying and
delaying treatment for Mays's nasal condition at Robinson
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for
implementing policies and procedures that resulted in Mays
being denied necessary medical care;
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Martin and Erickson for failing to
intervene to ensure that Mays would be given adequate medical
treatment at Robinson; Count 4: First
Amendment retaliation claim against Shah, for prematurely
terminating Mays's post-surgery medication and nasal
rinses in January 2018 because Mays filed grievances against
(Doc. 46, p. 5).
8, 2019, Mays filed a Motion to Compel asking the Court to
compel Defendants Vipin Shah and Stephen Ritz to answer his
interrogatories (Doc. 83). On July 17, 2019, Defendants filed
a response in opposition to the Motion to Compel, arguing
that Mays did not, in good faith, confer with Defendants Shah
and Ritz prior to filing the Motion to Compel and that Mays
inaccurately transcribed the Interrogatories he sent to them
(Doc. 86). On July 26, 2019, Judge Daly granted in part and
denied in part the Motion to Compel, ordering Defendant Shah
to supplement his response to Interrogatories #2 and #3 and
ordering Defendant Ritz to supplement his response to
Interrogatory #13 (Doc. 87).
29, 2019, Mays filed a Reply to the Motion to Compel, where
he also requested a retake of his deposition (Doc. 93). He
explained that he was deposed on June 19, 2019 and Wexford
attorney Alison Matusofsky did not introduce herself to him
until halfway through the deposition, both attorneys that
deposed him (Alison Matusofsky and Jeanine Armstrong) failed
to instruct him that he could object to any question (Doc.
93, p. 4). Thus, he asked Judge Daly to reopen discovery
until December 12, 2019, and to allow him to retake his
deposition (Id.). On July 30, 2019, Defendants filed
a response in opposition to that request (Doc. 94).
August 2, 2019, Judge Daly denied Mays's request to
reopen discovery and to have his deposition retaken (Doc.
99). She reasoned that Mays failed to set forth sufficient
justification for the request (Id.).
August 21, 2019, Mays filed an Objection to that August 2,
2019 order, reiterating the same arguments he previously made
(Doc. 107). On August 20, 2019, Defendants filed a Response
in Opposition to that Objection (Doc. 108).
Court may modify or reverse a decision of a magistrate judge
on a non-dispositive issue upon a showing that the magistrate
judge's decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P.
72(a). See also SDIL-LR 73.1(a). A decision is
clearly erroneous “only if the district court is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126
F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). See also Parts & Elec.
Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 866 F.2d 228, 233
(7th Cir. 1988) (“To be clearly erroneous, a decision
must strike [the Court] as more than just maybe or probably
wrong; it must . . . strike [the Court] as wrong with the
force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.”).
Daly denied Mays's request to reopen discovery and retake
his deposition on the basis that he failed to set forth
sufficient justification for doing so (Doc. 99). In his
appeal of this order, Mays argues that Alison Matusofsky
never stated who she was for the record and neither Alison
Matusofsky nor Jeanine Armstrong instructed him at the
beginning of the deposition that he could object to any
question (Doc. 107, p. 2). Defendants respond that these are
the same arguments Mays made previously to Judge Daly. They
further argue that defense counsel had no duty to provide
legal advice to Mays and, in fact, defense counsel should not
give legal advice to an unrepresented person (Doc.
103). Moreover, they argue that, if Mays is
permitted to have another deposition taken, this would only
add to the costs of the case and needlessly extend it
Court finds there is nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to
law in Judge Daly's order denying the request to reopen
discovery or retake Mays's deposition. Defense counsel
were not required to instruct Mays that he could object to
any question. Additionally, the Court notes that Mays is not
a novice litigator; he has three cases pending in this
district at the present time. In fact, he states in his
objection that he has been previously informed on objecting
at depositions (Doc. 107, p. 2). The Court ...