Verrier v. Perrino et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 85 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel - Rule 26; granting 87 Plaintiff's Motion for Document; denying 88 Plaintiff's Motion for Extended Interrogatories. A Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 12/30/2016. (HJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JOSEPH M. VERRIER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-744-FtM-29CM

PETER PERRINO and DIANE
LAPAUL,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
- Rule 26 (Doc. 85); Plaintiff’s Motion for Document (Doc. 87); and Plaintiff’s Motion
for Extended Interrogatories (Doc. 88).

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to

compel (Doc. 85) and for extended interrogatories (Doc. 88).

Docs. 90, 91.

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce
certain documents.

Doc. 85.

Plaintiff argues that he asked Defendants to produce

certain documents pertaining to him, which they did not provide.

Id. at 1. Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants asked for $95 to produce these documents as part of
discovery.

Id. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants should bear the cost of producing

the requested documents.

Id. at 2. As Defendants accurately point out, however,

Plaintiff does not identify which documents he seeks to compel.

Doc. 90 at 2.

Furthermore, based on the description of the documents, Defendants state that on
November 14, 2016, they served their responses to Plaintiff’s request for documents,
which included various objections.

Id. at 2-4.

Plaintiff does not provide any

evidentiary or legal ground as to why the Court should overrule Defendants’
objections and compel Defendants to produce the requested documents.

Doc. 85.

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he asked for the records of the hearing held
on April 20, 2016 before the Florida Commission on Offender Review.

Id. at 2.

Plaintiff argues that he needs the records in order to prove that Defendant Peter
Perrino (“Perrino”) committed perjury under oath.

Id. at 3. Plaintiff states that he

would waive this request for the records if Perrino testifies to a certain number of
statements provided in the motion.

Id. Under Rule 34(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, a party may serve on the other party a request to produce items that
are in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).

Here, Defendants respond that they cannot produce the requested records because
they do not have custody or control of the hearing records.

Doc. 90 at 5.

Based on

the above reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 85) is denied.
In his motion for extended interrogatories, Plaintiff seeks to serve a total of
100 interrogatories and additional twenty (20) interrogatories in the future.
at 4.

Doc. 88

Plaintiff argues that he only recently learned that the Counts III and IV of his

Third Amended Complaint survived.

Docs. 46 at 19-20; 88 at 2.

Furthermore,

Plaintiff asserts that serving more interrogatories than permitted under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is necessary because the majority of the evidence is in
Defendants’ possession and he needs to establish the inconsistency and arbitrary
nature of the statute in question.

Doc. 88 at 3-4.

-2-

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to serve on
another party “no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete
subparts” unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.
33(a)(1).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

“Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent

consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) 1 and (2). 2”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).

Here, Plaintiff

does not show at all how the extent of his request is consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) or

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). In addition to the

(2) as required by Rule 33(a)(1).

limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants point out
that the parties agreed to serve no more than 25 interrogatories, including sub-parts,
in their Case Management Report.

Doc. 51 at 6.

Based on the reasons above, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for extended interrogatories.
With regard to his motion for documents, Plaintiff seeks a copy of the Third
Amended Complaint (Doc. 35).

Doc. 87.

Defendants have not filed any brief in

opposition to the motion, and their time to do so has expired.

As result, the Court

will grant Plaintiff’s motion for documents.

1

Rule 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as follows:
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues
at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access
to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery,
in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Rule 26(b)(2) imposes limitations on frequent and extent of discovery, such as the number
of depositions and interrogatories or electronically stored information.
2

-3-

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel - Rule 26 (Doc. 85) is DENIED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Documents (Doc. 87) is GRANTED.

A Clerk of

Court is directed to mail a copy of the Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 35) to Plaintiff.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extended Interrogatories is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 30th day of December,
2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Joseph Verrier pro se

-4-