Sansom v. Milyard et al
Filing
45
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 31 Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendant shall respond to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for Production of Documents No. 8 on or before 6/27/2011. The remainder of the relief sought in t he subject motion 31 is DENIED. Colorado Department of Corrections by Special Appearance and all named Defendants' 33 Motion to Quash and for Protective Order is GRANTED. Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum served upon the DOC on 5/11/2011 is QUASHED. Each party to pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/13/11.(lsw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02391-WYD-MJW
TRAVIS SANSOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN MILYARD, in his Individual Capacity as Warden;
BEVERLY DOWIS, R.N., in her Individual Capacity as HSA;
DEBRA HEDSTROM, R.N., in her Individual Capacity;
JENNIFER AGUIRRE, R.N., in her Individual Capacity;
GATBEL CHAMJOCK, P.A., in his Individual Capacity;
CASE MANAGER CRUSSEL, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER HODGES, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER BLAKE, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER MICHAELS, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER NICHOLS, in her Individual Capacity;
OFFICER LAWSON, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER PERRY, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER LADD, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER GILES, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER RHOADES, in her Individual Capacity;
OFFICER GLISSMAN, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER MORGAN, in his Individual Capacity;
OFFICER TIDEMANN, in his Individual Capacity; and
OFFICER FERGUSON, in his Individual Capacity,
Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING
(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOCKET NO. 31)
AND
(2) COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (“DOC”) BY SPECIAL
APPEARANCE AND ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOCKET NO. 33)
2
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
This matter is before the court for ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
(docket no. 31) and on the Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”) by Special
Appearance and All Named Defendants’ Motion to Quash and for Protective Order
(docket no. 33). The court has reviewed the subject motions (docket nos. 31 and 33),
the responses (docket nos. 35 and 40), and the replies (docket nos. 41 and 44). In
addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court file and has considered
applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully
informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Order.
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (docket no. 31), the Plaintiff seeks an
Order from this court directing Defendants to provide to Plaintiff full and complete
responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (“ROG”) numbered 2, 3, and 4 and Plaintiff’s
Requests for Production (“RFP”) numbered 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 23. In
addition, Plaintiff seeks an Order from this court for attorney fees for having to bring the
subject motion (docket no. 31) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A) and (C).
In the Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”) by Special Appearance and
All Named Defendants’ Motion to Quash and for Protective Order (docket no. 33), the
DOC and all named Defendants seek an Order from this court quashing the subpoena
duces tecum served upon the DOC on May 11, 2011 (Exhibit A-1), attached to the
subject motion (docket no. 33).
This case is an Eighth Amendment civil rights lawsuit for personal injuries
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 by Plaintiff. In essence, Plaintiff
3
alleges that he sustained personal injuries as a prisoner in the Colorado Department of
Corrections-Sterling Correctional Facility when he was denied access to medical
treatment for a serious injury.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.
That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;
2.
That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;
3.
That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard;
4.
That the First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (docket no.
14) is the operative pleading in this case;
5.
That Plaintiff’s claims are brought in the First Amended Complaint
and Jury Demand pursuant to Sections 1983 and 1988, and such
claims are against 19 Defendants, all named in their individual
capacities;
6.
That a party seeking a protective order must show that a “clearly
defined and serious injury” will result to the moving party in the
absence of such protective order. Exum v. United States Olympic
Committee, 209 F.R.D. 201, 206 (D. Colo. 202); see also Charles
A. Wright & Arthur Miller, Fed. Practice and Pro (Civ) § 2035 n.39
(“The courts have insisted on a particular and specific
demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and
4
conclusory statements, in or to establish good cause.”);
7.
That Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines
the scope of discovery as follows:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense–including the existence, description,
nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or
other tangible things and the identity and location of persons
who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed
by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, “a party’s right to obtain
discovery of ‘any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim
or defense of a party’ . . . may be constrained where the court
determines that the desired discovery is unreasonable or unduly
burdensome given the needs of the case, the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed
discovery in resolving the issues.” Simpson v. University of Colo.,
5
220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D. Colo. 2004). “The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permit a court to restrict or preclude discovery when
justice requires in order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense. . . .” Id. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and (c);
A given topic is relevant if it has “the mere tendency” of making any
material fact more or less probable. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Wise, 139 F.R.D. 168, 170 (D. Colo. 1991). See Fed. R. Evid. 401;
8.
That on January 31, 2011, Plaintiff served Defendants with the
subject discovery requests as outlined in the subject motion (docket
no. 31). Defendants requested additional time to gather materials
to respond to the discovery requests by Plaintiff and did provide to
Plaintiff discovery responses on or about March 29, 2011;
9.
That on April 21, 2011, Defendants provided their first supplemental
discovery responses, providing supplemental responses to RFPs
numbered 1, 3, 7, and 14. See exhibit A attached to Response to
Motion to Compel (docket no. 35);
10.
That on May 9, 2011, Defendants provided their second
supplemental discovery responses, providing supplemental
responses to RFPs numbered 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, and
25. See exhibit B attached to Response to Motion to Compel
(docket no. 35);
6
11.
That on May 11, 2011, Plaintiff served the subject subpoena duces
tecum upon the DOC;
12.
That as to ROG no. 2, I find that ROG no. 2 has been fully
answered by Defendants, and therefore no further response is
required by Defendants;
13.
That as to ROG no. 3, I find that ROG no. 3 is not vague or overly
broad. I further find that Defendants have partially answered ROG
no. 3. Defendants shall supplement their answer to ROG no. 3 with
more specificity;
14.
That as to ROG no. 4, I find that ROG no. 4 has been fully
answered by Defendants, and therefore no further response is
required by Defendants;
15.
That as to RFP no. 5, I find that RFP no. 5 is overly-broad, seeks
information not related to Plaintiff’s claims, and is not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this RFP
seeks confidential and health-sensitive information for inmates
other than for Plaintiff. For these reasons, Defendants are not
required to further respond to RFP no. 5;
16.
That as to RFP no. 6, I find that RFP no. 6 is overly-broad, seeks
information not related to Plaintiff’s claims, and is not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, this RFP
seeks confidential and health-sensitive information for inmates
other than for Plaintiff. For these reasons, Defendants are not
7
required to further respond to RFP no. 6;
17.
That as to RFP no. 8, I find that RFP no. 8 is overly-broad, seeks
information not related to Plaintiff’s claims, and is not calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, information
in hard copy or electronically-stored from December 1, 2008,
through December 11, 2008, concerning Plaintiff Travis Sansom is
relevant and is discoverable. Accordingly, Defendants shall
supplement their response to RFP no. 8 to include any documents
in any format (hard copy or electronically-stored) that relates to
Travis Sansom from December 1, 2008, through December 11,
2008 between any prison guards and medical personnel regarding
Plaintiff Travis Sansom;
18.
That as to RFP no. 10, I find that Defendants have fully responded
to RFP no. 10, and no further response is required;
19.
That as to RFP no. 11, I find that Defendants have fully responded
to RFP no. 11, and no further response is required;
20.
That as to RFP no. 15, I find that RFP no. 15 is vague as to the
term “gatekeeper,” and therefore Defendants are not required to
respond further to RFP no. 15;
21.
That as to RFP no. 16, I find that Defendants have fully responded
to RFP no. 16, and no further response is required;
22.
That as to RFP no. 17, I find that Defendants have fully responded
to RFP no. 17, and no further response is required;
8
23.
That as to RFP no. 23, I find that Defendants have fully responded
to RFP no. 23, and no further response is required. Defendants
have made available to Plaintiff’s counsel the requested information
outlined in RFP no. 23 at the DOC HR Office for review; and
24.
That as to the subject subpoena duces tecum which is the subject
matter of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”) by
Special Appearance and All Named Defendants’ Motion to Quash
and for Protective Order (docket no. 33), I find the subpoena duces
tecum does not allow a reasonable time to comply since such
subpoena duces tecum was served upon the DOC on May 11,
2011, and the information requested within the subpoena duces
tecum was to be delivered by May 13, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.
Moreover, I find that Plaintiff served his subpoena duces tecum
upon the DOC even though Plaintiff had already previously filed his
Motion to Compel Discovery [filed on April 22, 2011] (docket no.
31). I further find that Plaintiff”s service of the subpoena duces
tecum on May 11, 2011, was an attempt to circumvent the proper
discovery procedure under Rule 37 since Plaintiff had his Motion to
Compel Discovery [filed on April 22, 2011] (docket no. 31) pending
before this court, noting that similar information that was being
requested in the subpoena duces tecum is also being sought in the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [filed on April 22, 2011]
(docket no. 31). I further find that the subpoena duces tecum is
9
overly-broad and requests irrelevant information. I further find that
the subpoena duces tecum was improperly served upon the DOC
headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado, noting that the
Colorado Springs Office of the DOC is not the records custodian
for the information requested by Plaintiff from the DOC in such
subpoena duces tecum. For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s
subpoena duces tecum served upon the DOC on May 11, 2011,
should be quashed, and the Colorado Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) by Special Appearance and All Named Defendants’ Motion
to Quash and for Protective Order (docket no. 33) should be
granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(i) and (iv).
ORDER
WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.
That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (docket no. 31) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The subject motion
(docket no. 31) is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request
for Production of Documents No. 8 ONLY. Defendant shall fully
and completely respond to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for
Production of Documents No. 8 on or before June 27, 2011. The
remainder of the relief sought in the subject motion (docket no. 31)
is DENIED;
10
2.
That the Colorado Department of Corrections (“DOC”) by Special
Appearance and All Named Defendants’ Motion to Quash and for
Protective Order (docket no. 33) is GRANTED. The Plaintiff’s
subpoena duces tecum served upon the DOC on May 11, 2011, is
QUASHED; and
3.
That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this
motion.
Done this 13th day of June 2011.
BY THE COURT
s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?