Nate A. Lindell v. Ashley Suprise

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATE A. LINDELL,
Plaintiff, 	ORDER
v.
23-cv-805-amb
ASHLEY SUPRISE,
Defendant.
Defendant has submitted her personnel file and related intake files for in camera review
per the court’s order at the February 11, 2026 second final pretrial conference. 	Dkts. 129–
137. 	Plaintiff has already obtained some of these materials, including investigative files
regarding 	plaintiff’s 	PREA 	complaint 	against 	defendant 	and 	defendant’s 	arrest 	and
termination. The remaining files include hiring and other personnel materials, a letter from a
nonparty inmate referencing defendant, and additional, undisclosed investigative files.
The files contain information that has already been disclosed or that is substantially
similar to the information plaintiff has obtained, which was discussed at length during the final
pretrial conferences on February 10 and February 11, 2026. 	The undisclosed information
involves allegations that defendant engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a supervisor,
inappropriately gossiped about coworkers, and made inappropriate comments to inmates. At
face value, this amounts to workplace misconduct, but even if taken as wholly true, this
information is not admissible in this case.
The court has reviewed all of the undisclosed documents and will not require their
production. 	Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 401, these documents do not contain any
Case: 3:23-cv-00805-amb Document #: 145 Filed: 02/12/26 Page 1 of 2

2
evidence that would have any tendency to make a fact of consequence in this case more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence. 	Nor do any of these documents contain
permissible character or other acts evidence under Rules 404(b) or 415, or impeachment
evidence under Rule 608(b). 	These documents do, however, contain plenty of information
that would be confusing to the jurors, a waste of trial time, and unfairly prejudicial to defendant
under Rule 403.
Plaintiff’s request for further production from defendant’s personnel and intake files is
DENIED. 	Defense counsel is ORDERED to send the litigation coordinator at plaintiff’s
institution a copy of this order via electronic means for immediate distribution to plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Entered February 12, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00805-amb Document #: 145 Filed: 02/12/26 Page 2 of 2