Hall v. Palmer et al

Filing 97

ORDER granting in part and denying in part as moot 77 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery; directing Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's request for production numbers 10, 14, 22, and 23 and to provide a privilege log by April 29, 2019; directing the parties to file a joint notice following Defendants' compliance; see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 3/29/2019. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ENOCH DONNELL HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:15-cv-824-J-39JRK

JOHN PALMER, etc.; et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 77;
Motion) and Notice as to the Motion to Compel (Doc. 89; Notice).1
Defendants have responded to the Motion (Doc. 81; Response).
Plaintiff is a death row inmate confined at Florida State Prison
(FSP) proceeding on a Fourth Amended Complaint prepared by counsel
(Doc. 22; FAC). In his FAC, Plaintiff alleges his conditions of
confinement differ from similarly-situated death row inmates. See
FAC at 6. Plaintiff describes his confinement status as “quasipunitive” and created to punish rather than to address valid
security concerns. Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges his visitation
privileges were improperly revoked, and his outdoor recreation
While Plaintiff’s Motion was pending, the parties jointly moved
for a two-day extension of time to file dispositive motions, which
the Court granted. See Order (Doc. 85). Because the parties’
request for an extension of time was not motivated by the
outstanding discovery dispute, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file
a notice advising whether the Motion was moot. In the Notice,
Plaintiff narrows the scope of the discovery dispute for this
Court’s consideration.
1

time differs from that enjoyed by similarly-situated inmates. Id.
at 7-8. He also asserts a claim for excessive force against
Defendants Simmons and Ellis. Id. at 14.
In

his

Motion,

Plaintiff

requests

that

the

Court

order

Defendants to provide complete responses to Plaintiff’s first
request for production of documents (RFP), strike Defendants’
boilerplate

objections,

and

require

Defendants

to

produce

a

privilege log. See Motion at 1. Plaintiff seeks disclosure of
documents responsive to multiple requests: RFP numbers 1, 3-6, and
8-25. Id. In his Notice, Plaintiff concedes a number of the
requests are now moot given Defendants’ representations that they
have no other responsive documents. See Notice at 3.2 Accordingly,
as

to

RFP

numbers

1,

3-6,

8-9,

11-13,

15-21,

24,

and

25,

Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied in part as moot.
Plaintiff

continues

to

object

to

Defendants’

failure

to

provide a privilege log and identifies four requests that remain
at issue: RFP numbers 10, 14, 22, and 23. See id. These requests
are set forth below, followed immediately by Defendants’ original
objection/response to each:

Plaintiff questions the veracity or completeness of Defendants’
representations that they have no other documents available to
disclose in response to RFP numbers 8, 18, 19, and 20. See Notice
at 2, 3. However, Defendants represent they have responded to these
discovery requests to the extent they are able, and there are no
other documents responsive to the requests. See Response at 7, 1618.
2

2

RPF No. 10 & Objections:
All documents since March 23, 2011, relating to other
lawsuits, claims, or adversarial proceedings in which
you are or have been involved as a plaintiff, defendant,
claimant, respondent or any other party or petitioner,
including but not limited to, pleadings, depositions,
statement, transcripts, court filings and decrees,
settlement agreements or mediation agreements.
OBJECTION ONE: See Question 1, Objection One
[Objection is made to producing certain information
that is confidential and/or presents a security
risk if released and which is irrelevant and not
likely to lead to relevant admissible evidence. See
e.g. Metro Pony, LLC v. City of Metropolis, 2011 WL
2729163 *2 (S.D. Ill. 2011)(Discovery does not,
however, extend to irrelevant matters that are not
likely to lead to discovery of admissible
evidence). The information requested that is
confidential under Florida law poses a potential
security threat which far outweighs Plaintiff’s
need for the information requested when the
interests
are
weighed
under
the
applicable
balancing test. See § 119.071(4)(d)2.a.(I), Fla.
Stat.; § 945.10, Fla. Stat.; Coughlin v. Lee, 946
F.2d 1152, 1160 (5th Cir. 1991). Any such
information shall be redacted prior to review of
these documents, including but not limited to, the
following [internal bulleting omitted]: employee
numbers; dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers;
social security numbers; screen print identifiers;
user, system, and terminal IDs; computer codes.
OBJECTION TWO: Request is overly broad, unduly
burdensome, irrelevant, a security risk, and
unlikely to lead to admissible evidence.
OBJECTION THREE: Production of many of the
requested documents would violate attorney client
privilege and HIPAA.
RFP No. 14 & Objection/Response:
All documents that you intend to use for impeachment
purposes at the trial of this matter.

3

OBJECTION ONE: See Question 1, Objection One.
RESPONSE: At this time, no such documents are
prepared or known. If or when such documents become
prepared or known, they will be provided to
Plaintiff’s counsel, subject to any objections.
RFP No. 22 & Objections:
All medical documents generated as a result of the events
of May 21, 2014.3
OBJECTION ONE: See Question 1, Objection One.
OBJECTION TWO: The request is overly broad, and
additionally the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain
his own medical files from his facility, as such
the Defense should not be burdened with its
production.
RFP No. 23 & Response:
Plaintiff’s FSP medical file from March 23, 2011 to the
present.
RESPONSE: See Question 22.
See Motion at 12-13, 15, 20, 21.4
In their Response, Defendants assert Plaintiff’s counsel did
not

confer

with

defense

counsel

with

respect

to

RFP

no.

10

(documents related to other lawsuits). See Response at 9-10.
Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel certifies in his Motion that he

Plaintiff alleges Defendants Simmons and Ellis beat him with a
metal object on May 21, 2014, causing extreme pain in his left
hand and wrist. See FAC at 8.
3

Plaintiff provides a copy of the complete RFP sent to Defendants
(Doc. 77-1). The Court will cite to the Motion, Notice, and
Response, as necessary, when referencing the individual requests
and objections/responses.
4

4

conferred in good faith with defense counsel on all issues raised
in the Motion. See Motion at 23. In fact, Plaintiff’s counsel
references “multiple” discussions.

See id. at 1 n.1, 5 n.6.

Defendants also assert RFP no. 10 is overly-broad and unduly
burdensome because the requested documents are stored in inmate
files, not in personnel files. See Response at 10. Defendants do
not claim, as they did in their discovery response, that the
requested

documents

contain

confidential

or

privileged

information. See id.
Upon review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s RFP no. 10 seeks
information that is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendants’ objection in their Response that the request
is

overly-broad

and

unduly

burdensome

is

unpersuasive

and,

therefore, overruled. The Court also overrules Defendants’ general
boilerplate objections asserted in their discovery response. See
Polycarpe

v.

Seterus,

Inc.,

No.

616CV1606ORL37TBS,

2017

WL

2257571, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2017) (“Objections which state
that a discovery request is ‘vague, overly broad, or unduly
burdensome’

are,

by

themselves,

meaningless,

and

are

deemed

without merit .....”) (collecting cases).
As to RFP no. 14, at the time of their Response, Defendants
acknowledged they would be disclosing the “Penitentiary Pack.” See
Response at 13. Defendants assert they disclosed all other known
documents but would continue to disclose relevant materials if
5

“any further documents are located.” Id. To the extent Defendants
have in their possession documents responsive to this request,
they shall provide them to Plaintiff’s counsel subject to proper
objections.
As to RFP numbers 22 and 23, Defendants assert Plaintiff did
not complete a medical waiver, and it is easier for Plaintiff to
obtain his own medical records from his institution. See Response
at 19-20. Plaintiff’s counsel states in his Notice that he provided
an executed medical release to defense counsel on October 25, 2018,
and he attaches as an exhibit the medical release along with the
email he sent to defense counsel (Doc. 89-1). See Notice at 3. The
Court finds the requested documents are relevant and subject to
disclosure.

Defense

counsel’s

objections

that

the

request

is

overly-broad and Plaintiff can obtain the records himself are
overruled. See Polycarpe, 2017 WL 2257571, at *2. Defense counsel
shall provide the requested documents to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Finally,

Plaintiff

asserts

a

privilege

log

is

required

because he is unable to determine whether the disclosed documents
have been redacted and, if so, on what basis. See Notice at 3;
Motion at 9 n.7 (“Defendants provide no explanation or support
showing that any specific request is “vague,” “overbroad,” or
“unclear.”). Defendants assert in their Response they “have not
claimed any privileges [and] therefore no privilege log exists.”
See Response at 22. Defendants also state, however, that “any
6

redactions made were based on medical issues, security issues, or
trade secret issues.” Id. To the extent Defendants withheld on the
basis of a privilege any information otherwise discoverable, they
shall submit to Plaintiff’s counsel a privilege log in compliance
with Rule 26(a)(5), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Otherwise,
they shall certify in writing to Plaintiff’s counsel that no
information was withheld under Rule 26(a)(5).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED in part as moot and GRANTED

in part. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in part as moot with respect
to RFP numbers 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-21, 24, and 25. Plaintiff’s
Motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court overrules Defendants’
boilerplate objections to RFP numbers 10, 14, 22, and 23.
2.

Defense counsel shall respond to RFP numbers 10, 14, 22,

and 23, asserting only appropriate objections consistent with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law, no later
than April 29, 2019. Also by April 29, 2019, defense counsel shall
submit to Plaintiff’s counsel a privilege log under Rule 26(a)(5),
or certify in writing that no information was withheld under Rule
26(a)(5).
3.

Plaintiff’s counsel and defense counsel shall submit a

joint notice to the Court upon Defendants’ compliance with this

7

Order, advising whether the pending motions for summary judgment
(Docs. 86, 87) are ripe for this Court’s review.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 29th day of
March, 2019.

Jax-6
c:
Counsel of Record

8