Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cook v. Wiley

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

October 11, 2019

EDWARD C. COOK, JASON GRIDER, KENNETH LAINHART, ROBERT PEACHER, Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLES WILEY Sergeant, JASON GRIFFITH Sergeant, MICHAEL SPURGIN Captain, Defendants.

          ENTRY ON STATUS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 10, 2019

          Tim A. Baker United States Magistrate Judge

         On October 10, 2019, the Court conducted a status conference in this action. Defendants appeared by counsel. Plaintiffs Cook, Grider, and Peacher participated pro se by video and Plaintiff Lainhart participated pro se by telephone.

         As a result of the conference, the Court issues the following rulings:

         1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel, dkt. [56], is granted to the extent that Defendants must produce the following:

a. The names and job titles of staff members who were on the unit on September 4, 2018;
b. A video from the chow hall on September 8, 2019, in which Defendant Griffin allegedly talked to Peacher about the September 4, 2018, incident; and
c. Defendant Michael Spurgin's responses to Plaintiffs' requests for admission (if not already served).

         With respect to redacted documents discussed during the conference, Defendants reported that they have sent a privilege log to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall review the privilege log and if they have additional objections, they shall attempt to resolve those with defense counsel before seeking any intervention from the Court.

         2. Plaintiffs' motion for order to obtain affidavits, dkt. [64], is granted to the extent that Defendants represented that there is no policy preventing Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) staff from providing statements or declarations to inmates for litigation purposes. The policy reportedly requires staff to notify the Warden if they do give statements or declarations to inmates. As will be discussed further in this Entry, if counsel is recruited, counsel will assist Plaintiffs in obtaining declarations or conducting depositions, if the case does not settle before such discovery is needed.

         3. Plaintiffs' motion for assistance with obtaining a court reporter, dkt. [69], is denied because the Court lacks the authority to do so.

         4. Plaintiffs' motion to grant motion to compel, dkt. [71], is granted to the extent consistent with the ruling in paragraph 1 of this Entry.

         5. Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time for discovery, dkt. [77], and Defendants' motion to extend discovery deadline, dkt. [92], are granted subject to the pretrial schedule being reset after a settlement conference that will be set by separate order. Discovery may proceed in the meantime.

         6. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to take depositions by interrogatories, dkt. [78], is denied as moot because if depositions are needed after the settlement conference, recruited counsel will assist in that way.

         7. Plaintiffs' motion to appear at depositions, dkt. [93], is granted. They have the right to be present if depositions are taken. If Plaintiffs have counsel, Plaintiffs' appearance at any deposition shall be by counsel. If Plaintiffs do not have counsel, Plaintiffs shall be permitted to appear telephonically. Given the logistics of the four Plaintiffs being incarcerated at two ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.