Winston v. Gipson

Background

Myriss Winston filed two motions: a motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions, and a motion for appointment of counsel. The order addresses only those pending motions. Defendants had also filed a separate motion for summary judgment, but the court stated that it would resolve that motion in a later written order.

Discovery and Sanctions

Winston said he had served requests for written answers, admissions, and documents, but that defendants had not answered. Defendants opposed the motion, stating that they had timely provided meaningful responses and objections. Winston did not file a response to their opposition.

The court stated that defendants appeared to have satisfied Winston’s discovery requests and had submitted declarations and exhibits with their summary-judgment motion. The court therefore denied the pending motion to compel. In the discussion, the court described the denial as being without prejudice to Winston pursuing a further motion to compel, but the conclusion states simply that the motion to compel and impose sanctions is denied.

The court also denied Winston’s request for sanctions against defense counsel. It found sanctions inappropriate at that time because the record showed that defendants had attempted to produce the discovery Winston sought.

The court reminded the parties that they must first make a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes informally before asking the court to intervene. Because Winston is incarcerated, the court said he did not have to meet with defendants in person; if he intended to pursue another motion to compel, he could send defendants a letter identifying the discovery sought and explaining why he believed he was entitled to it.

Appointment of Counsel

Winston requested appointed counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. The court said this requires considering both the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to explain his claims without a lawyer, in light of the complexity of the legal issues. The court concluded that circumstances requiring appointment of counsel were not evident at that time and denied the request.

Ruling and Case Status

The court denied Winston’s motion to compel discovery and impose sanctions and denied his request for appointment of counsel. It directed the parties to follow the existing schedule: Winston’s opposition to defendants’ summary-judgment motion was due September 19, 2022, and defendants’ reply was due no later than 14 days after that opposition. The summary-judgment motion would be submitted without a hearing unless the court ordered otherwise and would be addressed in a separate written order. Judge Ryu ordered the clerk to terminate Docket Nos. 24 and 25.