Cooley v. Summit
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:24-cv-02457
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Morye Cooley v. Summit, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted Defendant Summit Food Service's motion to compel discovery, ordering Plaintiff Morye Cooley to provide written answers, documents, and signed medical record authorizations by January 30, 2026, and warning that continued non-compliance could result in dismissal of the case.
Plaintiff Morye Cooley, a self-represented incarcerated person who is required by this order to respond to outstanding discovery requests by January 30, 2026, and who faces possible dismissal of his lawsuit if he does not comply.
What happened
In Morye Cooley v. Summit (Case No. 24-CV-02457), Plaintiff Morye Cooley, an incarcerated person, sued Defendant Summit Food Service alleging that while he was held in the Dakota County Jail, Summit repeatedly failed to provide him with correct special diet trays, gave him food he was allergic to, and violated his First Amendment religious rights by not accommodating his religious dietary needs. Summit served Cooley with written questions (interrogatories), document requests, and authorizations to access his medical records back in July 2025, but Cooley never responded to any of them, and also did not respond to Summit's attempt to meet and confer or to the court's later briefing deadlines.
Summit filed a motion to compel discovery on September 19, 2025. The court gave Cooley multiple opportunities to respond, including extending his deadline to November 17, 2025, partly because Cooley had been transferred to a different facility (MCF-St. Cloud) and Summit had difficulty serving him. Despite these accommodations, Cooley filed no response to the motion and produced no discovery materials.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted Summit's motion to compel, ordering Cooley to provide his signed answers to interrogatories, responses to document requests, and executed medical record authorizations by January 30, 2026. The court warned that if Cooley fails to comply, it will consider further sanctions, including recommending dismissal of his entire case. The court also found good reason to extend the case's scheduling order and directed Summit to file a proposed amended schedule within 14 days. The court reminded Cooley that, even as a self-represented (pro se) litigant, he is required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's local rules.
The detailed version
- Morye Cooley v. Summit, Case No. 24-CV-02457 (LMP/ECW)
- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- December 29, 2025
Background and Claims
Plaintiff Morye Cooley, proceeding pro se (representing himself) and currently incarcerated at MCF-St. Cloud, brought suit against Defendant Summit Food Service alleging two categories of harm arising from his time at the Dakota County Jail: (1) that Summit repeatedly failed to provide him with the correct special diet trays and instead gave him food to which he is allergic, implicating his medical health; and (2) that Summit violated his First Amendment rights by failing to accommodate his religious dietary requirements.
Discovery Dispute
On July 2, 2025, Summit served Cooley by U.S. Mail with interrogatories (written questions requiring written answers under oath), requests for production of documents, and authorizations permitting Summit access to various records, including Cooley's medical records. The operative scheduling order set the close of fact discovery for September 26, 2025.
Cooley did not respond to any of the discovery requests, did not respond to Summit's August 5, 2025 meet-and-confer request, and did not respond to the court's October 17, 2025 amended briefing schedule giving him until November 17, 2025 to oppose the motion to compel. The court noted that the service delays were partly due to Cooley's transfer to MCF-St. Cloud, which Summit could not immediately accommodate.
Legal Analysis
The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34, and 37: - Rule 26(b)(1) sets the general scope of discovery as any non-privileged matter relevant to a party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. - Rule 33 requires a party served with interrogatories to answer fully or object within 30 days. The court noted that under Rule 33(b)(4), any objection not timely raised is waived unless the court excuses it for good cause — a standard Cooley would now face. - Rule 34 authorizes requests for production of documents and requires response or objection within 30 days. The court cited district precedent (Klein v. Affiliated Group, Inc.) holding that late objections under Rule 34 are also impliedly waived absent good cause. - Medical record authorizations: Citing J.J.C. v. Fridell, 165 F.R.D. 513 (D. Minn. 1995) and Sandoval v. Am. Bldg. Maint. Indus., Inc., 267 F.R.D. 257 (D. Minn. 2007), the court found the request for executed medical record authorizations appropriate because Cooley placed his medical health at issue through his allergy-related allegations. - Rule 37(a) authorizes a party to move for an order compelling discovery when the opposing party fails to answer interrogatories or produce documents.
Ruling
The court granted Summit's motion to compel (Dkt. 40) in full. Cooley is ordered to provide, by January 30, 2026: (1) signed answers to interrogatories; (2) responses to requests for production of documents with any responsive documents; and (3) executed record authorizations (as listed in Dkt. 42-1). This deadline is stayed if Cooley appeals the order to the assigned district judge.
The court declined to recommend dismissal under Rule 41(b) (failure to prosecute) at this stage, as Summit had suggested, finding that Rule 37 — governing sanctions for discovery failures — is the appropriate mechanism. However, the court explicitly warned that if Cooley fails to comply with this order, it will consider further sanctions including recommending dismissal under Rule 37(b).
The court also found good cause to extend the scheduling order (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 16.3), given the procedural delays caused by Cooley's non-compliance and transfer. Summit was directed to submit a proposed amended scheduling order within 14 days.
Pro Se Reminder
The court reminded Cooley that pro se status does not exempt a litigant from compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, or court orders, citing Eighth Circuit precedent (Soliman v. Johanns; Bennett v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.; Burgs v. Sissel). The court directed Cooley to pro se resources available on the District of Minnesota's website.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.