Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure – Discovery

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 29, 2015//

Civil Procedure – Discovery

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 29, 2015//

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure – Discovery

Given the lateness of a plaintiff’s request for discovery, his lack of diligence in obtaining information, as well as his inability to show how he was prejudiced by the district court’s ruling, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to compel discovery.

“However, Gonzalez’s request for the climate survey was made after the close of written discovery. He does not explain the lateness of his request, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling his contention that the request was encompassed within his earlier request for documents relating to complaints of discrimination. (We have, in previous cases, considered the lateness of a discovery request in concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery material. See Packman, 267 F.3d at 647.) Additionally, very little is known about the discovery that Gonzalez seeks, making it difficult to analyze the extent to which he was prejudiced by its non-disclosure, if at all. We do not know, precisely, when or why this survey was conducted. We do not know whether the survey is still ongoing, or whether it has concluded. And other than knowing that the survey involves the ‘climate’ of District 4, we know very little about the survey’s substance. While one could argue that the reason we know so little about the survey is precisely because the district court denied Gonzalez’s motion to compel, it is also apparent that Gonzalez neglected to use all available avenues to find out more specific information about the climate survey, which may have aided him in his request, or at the very least his arguments on appeal. For example, Gonzalez could have taken advantage of the district court’s ruling allowing him to take any depositions through September 13, 2013 in order to find out more about the survey and whether it was relevant to his claims. He did not do so, nor does he explain this lack of diligence. As a result, we are left to only speculate about the contents of the climate survey and its potential impact on Gonzalez’s case. Thus, Gonzalez does not demonstrate how the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to compel, nor does he satisfy the prejudice requirement. compel that the survey was conducted two years after Gonzalez’s discharge from the department. See Resp. Br. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel 10.”

Affirmed.

14-2984 Gonzalez v. City of Milwaukee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests