Jennings, Kristin v. Jeremy Hatfield et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KRISTIN JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY HATFIELD
and JACKSON BOLLIG,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-220-jdp
Defendants have filed a second motion to compel. 	Dkt. 76. 	The motion seeks two
categories of information.
First, defendants ask the court to order plaintiff to re-do her medical authorizations.
Plaintiff reportedly signed certain medical authorizations, but they were not accepted by
medical providers after a review of the signatures. 	Defendants now ask for plaintiff to re-do
the authorizations with a notary. 	Plaintiff objects, saying this is unduly burdensome. 	The
court overrules this objection. Having a document notarized is a simple, quick, and inexpensive
activity that can be completed at various places around the community, including banks. This
is not such an onerous chore that it poses an undue burden. 	So, the court GRANTS this
portion of the motion, along the same lines that it granted the first motion to compel: 	The
court will not order plaintiff to produce her medical records or sign authorizations to that
effect. 	But this is plaintiff’s case to prosecute, and defendants are entitled to discovery to
defend against it. 	If plaintiff obstructs relevant discovery, there will be consequences,
including, possibly, dismissal. 	Plaintiff is thus ORDERED to either (1) provide defendants
with notarized, signed medical authorizations or (2) file a letter with the court stating that she
Case: 3:24-cv-00220-jdp Document #: 85 Filed: 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
has declined to do so, within two weeks of this order. Defendants may then seek further relief,
as appropriate.
Second, defendants ask the court to order plaintiff to provide authorizations for
employment and financial information and to answer discovery requests on financial matters.
The impetus for these requests is that plaintiff appears to assert a claim for lost wages, and
defendants wish to investigate that claim. Plaintiff objects, saying her claims focus on incident
conduct and non-economic harm. 	She also suggests she is not receiving employment or
disability benefits, which she argues negates the inquiry.
Plaintiff’s positions on these points are muddled, which is why discovery is appropriate.
If plaintiff is not seeking compensatory damages, that may render this discovery irrelevant, but
she needs to make that clear. If she is seeking compensatory damages, defendants do not need
to take her at her word about her past and present employment and earnings. They are entitled
to records to verify her assertions. 	If plaintiff is seeking lost wages, her past and present
employment and earnings are relevant because these may bolster or undermine what she now
claims she has lost due to defendants’ actions. 	Likewise, her receipt of benefits is relevant
because such benefits may offset her claimed losses.
Again, defendants are entitled to discovery to defend against plaintiff’s claims, and if
plaintiff obstructs relevant discovery there will be consequences. For example, if she persists
in a claim for compensatory damages and does not provide information about her employment
or finances, the court may prevent her from seeking these damages as the case goes forward.
With these points in mind, the court GRANTS this additional portion of the motion as follows:
Plaintiff is ORDERED to (1) file a letter with the court plainly stating whether she is pursuing
compensatory damages, such as lost wages, within two weeks of this order and (2) if she is
Case: 3:24-cv-00220-jdp Document #: 85 Filed: 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
pursuing some form of compensatory damages, she must provide defendants with the requested
employment and financial authorizations and complete the related discovery responses within
four weeks of this order.
The court will reserve on the question of shifting fees and costs until after it hears from
plaintiff. It will reset the deadlines for summary judgment briefing at that time as well.
SO ORDERED.
Entered March 6, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00220-jdp Document #: 85 Filed: 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3