Roca-Moreno v. Jones et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery; directing Defendants to produce responsive documents as articulated in the order by December 8, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 11/6/2020. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ALFREDO ROCA-MORENO, III,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:18-cv-231-Oc-39PRL

FNU ROSSITER, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling discovery (Doc. 60; Motion). Plaintiff
disputes Defendants’ responses to the following requests in his request for production: (1) records
of complaints by inmates or staff against Defendants, including disciplinary actions and uses of
force; (2) video footage of the incident; (3) the work shirt Defendant Mohs was wearing on the
day of the incident; (4) reports by the Office of the Inspector General (IG); and (5) documents of
any investigation into criminal charges against Plaintiff by the State Attorney’s office. See Motion
at 1-2. In response (Doc. 62; Def. Resp.), Defendants contend they have disclosed to Plaintiff video
footage and all responsive documents in their possession except individual “incident reports and
complaints or grievances written by any inmates against the Defendants.” See Def. Resp. at 3.
Upon review, the Court finds Defendants have appropriately responded to Plaintiff’s
requests for video footage (all footage has been sent to Plaintiff for his review); Defendant Mohs’s
work shirt (Defendant no longer has it); reports by the IG’s office (responsive documents have
been disclosed); and records of criminal investigation by the State Attorney’s Office (Defendants
have no such documents in their possession). See id. at 4-5.

As to Plaintiff’s request for records of disciplinary action, Defendants contend in their
response that a privilege or exemption applies, evidence of prior “bad acts” is inadmissible, and
the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. See id. at 3. According to Defendants,
Plaintiff’s request for such documentation is overly broad (not limited to a particular time) and
unduly burdensome because it would require prison officials to manually search the file of every
inmate ever housed with Defendants. Id. at 3-4.
As to the objections Defendants assert in their response to Plaintiff’s motion, they fail to
explain with any specificity how a privilege or exemption applies. Moreover, admissibility is not
the yardstick for discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits parties to obtain
discovery relevant to the party’s claim or defense, regardless of whether the evidence would be
admissible at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Significantly, Defendants do not indicate in their
response to Plaintiff’s motion that they raised these objections when responding to the request for
production. Rather, they responded to Plaintiff’s request as follows:
A copy of personnel records responsive to this request is being
provided for review to your classification officer. … You will have
an opportunity to review the documents and if desired, you may
submit a request for copies, at which point a cost will be determined.
Upon payment of those costs, the requested copies will be provided.
Id. at 2.
Because Defendants did not assert specific objections to Plaintiff’s request, they have
waived any such objections. See M.D. Fla. Civil Discovery Handbook § III.A.6 (“Absent
compelling circumstances, failure to assert an objection to a request for production within the time
allowed for responding constitutes a waiver and will preclude a party from asserting the objection
in response to a motion to compel.”). If Defendants asserted a general objection in their response
to Plaintiff’s request for production, such an objection is insufficient under the Rules of Civil

2

Procedure and as explained in the Middle District Civil Discovery Handbook. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(C) (“An objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the
basis of that objection.”); M.D. Fla. Civil Discovery Handbook § III.A.6 (“Objections to requests
for production should be specific, not generalized, and should be in compliance with the provisions
of Rule 34(b).”).
Additionally, as Defendants acknowledge in their response to Plaintiff’s motion, their
discovery response to Plaintiff was incomplete because their personnel records either did not
include complaints or disciplinary records against them, or such documentation was withheld. See
Def. Resp. at 3. Under the rules governing discovery, an incomplete disclosure constitutes a failure
to disclose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
Plaintiff’s request for prior disciplinary actions against Defendants is relevant given his
claims. He alleges Defendants used excessive force against him or failed to intervene during a use
of force. It is conceivable that, if disciplinary files exist documenting instances of excessive force
or a failure to intervene against Defendants, they may be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. However,
the Court finds Plaintiff’s request, as stated, is overbroad in that he requests documents of all
“complaints” by inmates and staff against Defendants with no time-range specified. Accordingly,
the Court limits the scope of the request such that Defendants must produce all disciplinary reports
against them documenting excessive-use-of-force or failure-to-intervene incidents for the fiveyear period preceding the date of the incident that is the subject of Plaintiff’s claims.1

1

If any responsive documents contain private or privileged information, Defendants may
redact the documents only to the extent necessary to protect any such information.
3

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 60) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part. The motion is granted to the extent the Court directs Defendants to produce all disciplinary
reports against them documenting excessive-use-of-force or failure-to-intervene incidents for the
five-year period preceding the date of the incident that is the subject of Plaintiff’s claims. In all
other respects, the motion is denied.
2.

Defendants must produce any responsive documents to Plaintiff’s request, as stated

in paragraph 1 of this Order, by December 8, 2020.
DONE AND ORDERED at Ocala, Florida, this 6th day of November 2020.

c:

Pro se Plaintiff
Counsel of Record

4