Golat, Shannon v. Wisconsin State Court System

W.D. Wisconsin

Golat, Shannon v. Wisconsin State Court System

DecidedOctober 17, 2024

Docket3:23-cv-00719

StatusUnknown

This text of Golat, Shannon v. Wisconsin State Court System (Golat, Shannon v. Wisconsin State Court System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golat, Shannon v. Wisconsin State Court System, (W.D. Wis. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SHANNON GOLAT,

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

23-cv-719-jdp WISCONSIN STATE COURT SYSTEM, et al.,

Defendants.

The court held a hearing on the parties’ pending discovery motions on October 17, 2024. Dkts. 38 & 44. Plaintiff was represented by Attorneys Adam Almen and Neven Selimovic. Defendants were represented by Assistant Attorneys General Katherine Polich and Tiffany Winter. For the reasons stated on the record, the court GRANTED defendants’ motion for a standing protective order, Dkt. 44, with modifications as discussed on the record. The parties must submit a joint proposed protective order, Dkt. 46, that incorporates the court’s feedback by COB on October 22, 2024. With a protective order soon to be in place, plaintiff’s motion to compel, Dkt. 38, is GRANTED, and defendants must produce their entire responses to the requests at-issue by COB on October 25, 2024. Defendants’ motion to quash the deposition of Assistant Attorney General Jeff Simcox noticed for October 25, 2024, Dkt. 44, is DENIED without prejudice because the privilege objections are not sufficiently particularized. Plaintiff needs to set forth more specific lines of questioning so defendants may better evaluate and object to the questions. To facilitate this, the court set the following schedule: plaintiff must provide defendants a list of topics, questions, and documents that plaintiff intends to use at the deposition by October 29, 2024. The parties must then meet and confer about the deposition by November 12, 2024. If any dispute remains, the parties will submit a joint motion that describes those lingering issues and the parties’ respective positions by November 26, 2024. The positions should address the authorities and reasoning set forth in Loendorf v. PeopleConnect, Inc., 2022 WL 2867174 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2022). Meanwhile, the noticed deposition is STAYED. The parties bear their own

costs on these motions. Entered this 17th day of October, 2024. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ ANITA MARIE BOOR Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SHANNON GOLAT,

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

23-cv-719-jdp WISCONSIN STATE COURT SYSTEM, et al.,

Defendants.

The court held a hearing on the parties’ pending discovery motions on October 17, 2024. Dkts. 38 & 44. Plaintiff was represented by Attorneys Adam Almen and Neven Selimovic. Defendants were represented by Assistant Attorneys General Katherine Polich and Tiffany Winter. For the reasons stated on the record, the court GRANTED defendants’ motion for a standing protective order, Dkt. 44, with modifications as discussed on the record. The parties must submit a joint proposed protective order, Dkt. 46, that incorporates the court’s feedback by COB on October 22, 2024. With a protective order soon to be in place, plaintiff’s motion to compel, Dkt. 38, is GRANTED, and defendants must produce their entire responses to the requests at-issue by COB on October 25, 2024. Defendants’ motion to quash the deposition of Assistant Attorney General Jeff Simcox noticed for October 25, 2024, Dkt. 44, is DENIED without prejudice because the privilege objections are not sufficiently particularized. Plaintiff needs to set forth more specific lines of questioning so defendants may better evaluate and object to the questions. To facilitate this, the court set the following schedule: plaintiff must provide defendants a list of topics, questions, and documents that plaintiff intends to use at the deposition by October 29, 2024. The parties must then meet and confer about the deposition by November 12, 2024. If any dispute remains, the parties will submit a joint motion that describes those lingering issues and the parties’ respective positions by November 26, 2024. The positions should address the authorities and reasoning set forth in Loendorf v. PeopleConnect, Inc., 2022 WL 2867174 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2022). Meanwhile, the noticed deposition is STAYED. The parties bear their own

costs on these motions. Entered this 17th day of October, 2024. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ ANITA MARIE BOOR Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Golat, Shannon v. Wisconsin State Court System, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golat-shannon-v-wisconsin-state-court-system-wiwd-2024.