Howard v. Coupe et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Motion for Order to Obtain Location of Persons with Discoverable Information (D.I. 47 ) is DENIED. The Motion for Defendant to Supplement Answers to Interrogatories (D.I. 49 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is ordered to supplement the answers to Interrogatories 18 and 21 on or before March 5, 2020 (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/4/2020. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KEVIN HOWARD ,
Plaintiff,
: Civ. Action No. 17-1548-RGA

V.

MICHAEL LITTLE ,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this

--1_ day of February, 2020 , having considered Plaintiffs

motion for an order to obtain the location of witnesses and motion for Defendant to
supplement discovery responses (0.1. 47 ; 0 .1. 49) ,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Motion for Order to Obtain Location of Persons with Discoverable

Information . The motion (0 .1. 47) is denied. Plaintiff asks the Court to order counsel
for Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the location (presumably addresses) of former
inmates Isreal Lee, Fred DeJohn , Joe Hermes, and John Folks , as well as former law
library paralegal Maria Lyons.

Plaintiff advises that he is unable to locate the

individuals due to his incarcerated status and that Department of Correction policy
prohibits his contact with them . (/d.) .
2.

Prison administrators are accorded wide-ranging deference in the

adoption and execution of policies and practices that are needed to preserve internal
order and to maintain institutional security. Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520 , 527 (1979) .
Here, Plaintiff attempts to use the Court as a means to side-step prison administration
security measures . Plaintiff provides no basis for why he wants to locate these people.

1

3.

Motion for Defendant to Supplement Answers to Interrogatories. The

motion (D .I. 49) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff asks the Court to order
Defendant to supplement his discovery responses.
answers provided by Defendant.

In essence , he moves to compel

Defendant opposes . (D.I. 52).

Pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26, "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case .. ..
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable. " Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1 ). Plaintiff seeks review of Defendant's answers
to interrogatories nos. 3, 4 , 10, 11 , 12, 17, 18, and 21 . (D .I. 49) .
4.

The Court has reviewed Defendant's answers. (D.I. 35) . Interrogatory 3

was answered , and Interrogatory 4 depended on a different answer than the one
Defendant gave to Interrogatory 3. Defendant answered Interrogatories 10 and 11 .
Defendant answered Interrogatories 12 and 17. He did not answer Interrogatory 18.
The answer to Interrogatory 21 is not really responsive . Defendant adequately
answered all challenged interrogatories other than 18 and 21.

Defendant is ordered to

supplement the answers to Interrogatories 18 and 21 on or before March

b,

2020 .

Of course, Rule 26(e) imposes a continuing obligation on Defendant to supplement his
discovery responses "in a timely manner" if it learns additional or corrective information
through the discovery process. See Fed . R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1 ).

2