Reese, Dontay v. Jackson County Sheriff's Office et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DONTAY LAVARICE REESE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF DUANE M WALDERA, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
23-cv-449-wmc
Plaintiff Dontay Lavarice Reese, representing herself, is proceeding with claims against
several Jackson County Sheriff’s Office deputies she alleges used excessive force on her and
subjected her to unsanitary conditions at the Jackson County Jail. 	Dkt. 16. 	This order
addresses plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to respond to requests for admissions, Dkt.
99, and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. 100. 	For the following reasons, the court
DENIES both motions.
ANALYSIS
A. Motion to compel, Dkt. 99.
Plaintiff moves the court to compel defendants to respond to requests for admissions
she says she mailed to defendants on September 1, 2025, and has filed with the court. Dkt.
99-1. 	Plaintiff contends that defendants’ answers to her previous requests were incomplete
and evasive, and these latest requests seek clarification and were drafted in response to
defendants’ objection to plaintiff’s previous requests as compound questions.
The court will deny plaintiff’s motion because she does not state that she has attempted
to meet and confer with defendants about their alleged failure to respond to the September 1,
Case: 3:23-cv-00449-wmc Document #: 103 Filed: 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

2
2025 requests. 	As the court has already explained to plaintiff, see Dkt. 46, a prerequisite to
filing a motion to compel discovery is “certification that the movant has in good faith conferred
or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure of discovery in an
effort to obtain it without court action.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 	Plaintiff’s motion, dated
October 30, 2025, does not contain a certificate of conference as required by Rule 37(a)(1).
That said, plaintiff says she mailed these requests to defendants over two months ago
without response, and her November 25, 2025 summary judgment response deadline is
approaching. The court has extended this deadline once already. Dkt. 95. In the interest of
avoiding further delay in this 2023 case, the court will order defendants to submit a letter to
the court by November 20, 2025 providing an update on their responses to plaintiff’s most
recent discovery requests.
B. Motion for sanctions, Dkt. 100
Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against defendants for their alleged failure to respond to a
court order. Specifically, on September 30, 2025, the court ordered defendants to (1) update
plaintiff and the court by letter on whether certain jail surveillance materials ever existed and,
if so, what happened to them and why; and (2) either produce the requested body-worn
materials or provide an update in line with the letter ordered for the jail surveillance materials.
Dkt. 95.
Plaintiff claims that defendants never responded to this order, and objected to her
amended complaint instead. 	Defendants did file a motion to strike plaintiff’s proposed
amended complaint on September 19, 2025, Dkt. 92, and that motion is under advisement
with the court. But defendants also timely responded to the court’s discovery order on October
28, 2025. 	Dkt. 97 & Dkt. 98. 	If plaintiff has yet to receive defendants’ response, she can
Case: 3:23-cv-00449-wmc Document #: 103 Filed: 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

3
order copies from the clerk’s office. Because there is no basis to sanction defendants, plaintiff’s
motion must be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Dontay Lavarice Reese’s motion to compel, Dkt. 99, is DENIED.
2. 	Defendants are ORDERED to update the court by letter as to their responses to
plaintiff’s September 1, 2025 discovery requests by November 20, 2025.
3. 	Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. 100, is DENIED.
Entered November 13, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00449-wmc Document #: 103 Filed: 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3