Fletcher v. Hoeppner Wagner & Evans
2:14-cv-00231
N.D. Ind.Jun 27, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Paul Fletcher objected to Magistrate Judge Cherry’s April 27, 2017 order denying (1) a stay of proceedings and (2) appointment/assistance of a court-sourced expert in a legal-malpractice case.
- Fletcher filed the objection on May 15, 2017; defendants Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, LLP and Wayne Golomb opposed (Golomb joined the response).
- Magistrate Judge Cherry denied the stay as prejudicial to defendants and unlikely to simplify or streamline the case; expert disclosure deadline had passed (Dec. 16, 2016).
- Magistrate Judge Cherry also denied Fletcher’s request for the court to appoint or locate an expert, finding the request untimely and that the court cannot act as plaintiff’s advocate.
- Fletcher asked in his reply for a 45-day extension to find an expert; the district court treated that as a separate, untimely request and denied it.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s discovery-related order under the Rule 72(a) “clear error” standard and affirmed the magistrate judge’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should review the magistrate judge’s discovery order de novo | Fletcher asked for de novo review, arguing the issue could be dispositive | Defendants invoked Rule 72(a) deferential review (clear-error) for magistrate discovery orders | Court applied Rule 72(a); Fletcher failed to show clear error; objection overruled |
| Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted | Fletcher sought a stay to simplify/avoid prejudice to him | Defendants argued a stay would unduly prejudice them and not streamline litigation | Magistrate judge’s denial of stay affirmed; stay would prejudice defendants and not simplify issues |
| Whether the court should appoint or help locate a court-sourced expert | Fletcher asked the court to appoint/suggest an expert, citing his pro se status and inability to secure one | Defendants argued request was untimely (expert disclosure passed) and court cannot act as plaintiff’s lawyer | Request denied as untimely and because court may not act as plaintiff’s advocate |
| Whether Fletcher should get additional time to retain an expert after affirmation | Fletcher requested 45 more days to locate an expert in his reply | Defendants opposed as untimely and procedurally improper | Request denied as procedurally improper (should be separate motion) and untimely (deadline passed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926 (7th Cir.) (describes clear-error standard for reviewing magistrate rulings)
- Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879 (7th Cir.) (explains deference and definition of clear error)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (formulation of the ‘definite and firm conviction’ standard for clear error)
- Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548 (7th Cir.) (court may not act as advocate for a pro se litigant)
- Gargiulo v. Baystate Health Inc., 279 F.R.D. 62 (D. Mass.) (discusses magistrate judges’ role in pretrial discovery and deference to their management)