DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a number of motions related to discovery filed by Plaintiff, Dustin M. Hovermale (Docs. 85, 91, 92, and 93). The Court considers each motion in turn, as set forth below.
In this motion, Plaintiff makes two primary requests. First, he asks the Court to strike Kim Murk's notebook, submitted as evidence by Defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment (See Doc. 76-2, pp. 3-24). Second, Plaintiff requests production (from whom, it is not clear) of a variety of documents, including other notebooks kept by Ms. Murk on other women trainees, employment records of other employees of the Illinois Department of Human Services, and names and employment records of other Social Services Career Trainee's from January 2014 to present.
Defendant filed a motion to deny or strike Plaintiff's motion on February 10, 2017 (Doc. 90). The Court
With regard to Plaintiff's first request to strike Kim Murk's notebook, said request will be addressed by District Judge Rosenstengel. Accordingly, this portion of Plaintiff's motion will remain pending.
With regard to Plaintiff's request for production of information and documents, his motion is
While the Court is aware that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is still required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil procedure and the District Court's Local Rules and he is not excused from complying with his responsibilities as a litigant. See Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751, 758 (7th Cir. 2008). The Court also notes that it provided Plaintiff with a courtesy copy of the pro se litigant guide available on the Court's web page on April 29, 2016 to assist him in litigating this matter.
In this filing, Plaintiff asserts that he lacks legal knowledge of the federal courts and procedure, but indicates he needs the following information so that he may prove his case: (1) other notebooks maintained by Kim Murk regarding Social Service Career Trainees; (2) Kim Murk's employment file; and (3) a list of all Social Services Career Trainees that were hired from January 2013 to present. Plaintiff also asks for the Court's assurance that his SSCT trainer, Kathy Segundo, would not suffer an adverse employment action if deposed. The Court's reasoning set forth above is equally applicable here. Despite Plaintiff's reference to his lack of legal knowledge and the federal courts and procedure, he again fails to provide an adequate reason for the Court to allow such untimely discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is
In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to help him obtain information critical to his case and asks the Illinois Attorney General to provide him information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Plaintiff indicates he would like a list of all individuals hired, the dates they were hired, and when they were terminated. Plaintiff does not provide any additional information concerning the information he seeks. The Court applies the reasoning set forth above in regards to Plaintiff's requests for discovery to the motion now before the Court. The Court reiterates the untimeliness of Plaintiff's request and his failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to engage in discovery. Plaintiff's motion is therefore
In this motion, Plaintiff complains that a number of individuals on the electronic list for receipt of court documents have not filed their notice of appearance. Plaintiff complains that these individuals failed to follow proper procedure and, for this reason, the Court should allow Plaintiff to receive a list of all Social Services Career Trainees and their dates of hire. Plaintiff's motion is