Archer v. City of Winter Haven et al

Filing 108

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories from Defendant, Kristina Wood; granting in part and denying in part 93 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories from Defendant, Walmart; granting in par t and denying in part 94 Motion to Compel Production from Defendant, Kristina Wood; granting in part and denying in part 95 Motion to Compel Production from Defendant, Walmart. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 11/7/2017. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DARRELL ARCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:16-cv-3067-T-36AAS

CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on: Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Answers
to Interrogatories from Defendant, Kristina Wood (Doc. 92); Amended Motion to Compel
Answers to Interrogatories from Defendant, Walmart (Doc. 93); Amended Motion to Compel
Responses and to Compel Production from Defendant, Kristina Wood (Doc. 94); and Amended
Motion to Compel Responses and to Compel Production from Defendant, Walmart (Doc. 95).
I.

BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Darrell Archer filed his First Amended Complaint

against Defendants City of Winter Haven, Winter Haven Police Department, Wal-Mart Stores
East, LP, Sgt. Dan Gaskin, Sgt. Ken Nicols, Sgt. Brad Webster, Edward Camp, Charles Caraway,
and Kristine Wood.1 (Doc. 32). Plaintiff alleges that on November 26, 2015, he purchased a
television at a Walmart store and, as he was leaving the store, a Walmart employee requested to
see a receipt for the purchase. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff refused to produce the receipt. (Id.). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants subsequently prevented him from leaving the store for 10 to 15 minutes,

1

Defendant Kristina Wood is employed as a supervisor at Walmart. (Doc. 32, p. 9).
1

threatened him with theft charges, and told him to leave without his television and not to come
back or else would be charged with trespass. (Id. at pp. 3-4).
On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant four amended motions to compel, seeking
the production of documents and interrogatory answers from Defendants Wood and Walmart.2
(Docs. 92, 93, 94, 95). On October 6, 2017, Defendants filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff’s
amended motions. (Docs. 98, 99). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
II.

ANALYSIS
Motions to compel discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). Rule 26(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the scope of discovery. That rule provides, in relevant
part, that
[p]arties 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, 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).
Here, Plaintiff seeks to compel better responses to Interrogatories to Defendant Walmart
Nos. 5-11, 15, and 16, Interrogatories to Defendant Wood Nos. 3-9, and 12-15, Request for
Production of Documents to Defendant Walmart Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18, and

2

The motions to compel were amended only as to format. However, the amended motions
did not attach the discovery requests and responses at issue. Therefore, when citing to specific
requests and responses, the Court refers to those filed at Docs. 82-1, 83-1, 84-1, and 85-1.
2

Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Wood Nos. 2-7, 9, 10, and 14-21.3
Defendants stated the boilerplate objections of vague, overbroad, seeks information
protected by attorney client or work product privileges, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence and often a combination of these boilerplate objections.
(Docs. 82-1, 83-1, 84-1, 85-1). As made clear by the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the use of boilerplate objections is improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(B) now requires that the responding party “state with specificity
the grounds for objection to the request, including the reasons.” Further, in addition to being
boilerplate, Defendants’ objections that the requested documents are “not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” are a restatement of the former language from Rule
26(b)(1). That language was removed when Rule 26 was amended in 2015. In light of the
foregoing, Defendants’ boilerplate objections are overruled, and the Court will address the other
objections raised, if any.
In addition, some of Defendants’ responses include the phrase “without waiving [its
objections].” Responding to discovery “subject to,” or “notwithstanding” objections “preserves
nothing and wastes the time and resources of the parties and the court.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14–cv–749–ORL–41, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015) (quoting Martin v.
Zale Del., Inc., No. 8:08–cv–47–T–27EAJ, 2008 WL 5255555, *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2008)).
Further, the Court’s handbook titled Middle District Discovery (2015) (“Discovery
Handbook”) provides guidance for interpreting requests for production and interrogatories. The
A number of these document requests were not correctly numbered in the parties’ briefs.
The Court will refer to the numbering used in the filed requests and responses at issue. (Docs. 821, 83-1, 84-1, 85-1).
3

3

Discovery Handbook instructs that “[a]n attorney receiving a request for documents or a subpoena
duces tecum shall reasonably and naturally interpret it, recognizing that the attorney serving it
generally does not have specific knowledge of the documents sought[.]” Discovery Handbook at
11. “Interrogatories should be interpreted reasonably, in good faith, and according to the meaning
the plain language of the interrogatory would naturally import.” Id. at 16. Here, a pro se litigant
propounded the interrogatories and document requests to Defendants. Many of Defendant’s
objections (and the resulting motion practice) could have been avoided if Defendants simply
heeded the Discovery Handbook’s guidance.
A.

Interrogatories to Defendant Walmart

Interrogatory No. 5: Based upon any investigation conducted by Walmart or known to
Walmart personnel, who made the initial stop of the plaintiff at Walmart during any time
of the incident?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, potentially seeks
information protected by the attorney client or work product privileges and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The
interrogatory is also vague as to the term “stop” and assumes that plaintiff
was stopped.

(Doc. 84-1, p. 5). Defendant Walmart argues that this interrogatory is vague because Plaintiff was
never stopped but, instead, was asked to show his purchase receipt. (Doc. 98, pp. 2-3). In addition,
Defendant contends that it is unclear what Plaintiff is referencing by the term “investigation,” and
that the interrogatory is not limited in time. (Id.). To cure the alleged vagueness of the
interrogatory, the phrase “made the initial stop” shall be replaced with “requested the purchase
receipt.” The term investigation is not vague,4 and the interrogatory is clearly referring to the time

To investigate is to “inquire into (a matter) systemically” or “make an official inquiry.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (Bryan A. Garner ed., 10th ed. 2009).
4

4

period of the subject incident on November 26, 2015, to the present. Defendant Walmart shall
provide an amended response to this interrogatory no later than November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 6: How and for what purpose were any police officers called upon to
assist in the stop or further processing or confrontation with the plaintiff?
Response:

(Doc. 84-1, p. 5).

Objection, this interrogatory is vague as to the terms “stop”, “further
processing” and “confrontation”, and assumes that there was any “stop”,
“processing” and/or “confrontation” with plaintiff. However, without
waiving the foregoing, officers of the Winter Haven Police Department
were in the store on the day of the incident and believed to be acting within
the policies and procedures of their department. Questions regarding how
and why any of these officers had any conversations with plaintiff is better
directed at those officers.
This answer is not responsive.

To cure the alleged vagueness of the

interrogatory, the term “stop” shall be replaced with “request for the purchase receipt.” The terms
processing and confrontation are not vague.5 Defendant Walmart shall provide an amended
response to this interrogatory no later than November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 7: What was the purpose of the initial stop of the plaintiff at Walmart
at the time of the incident and what was the legal authority or basis for such stop?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague as to the phrase “initial stop” and
assumes there was a “stop.” Without waiving the foregoing, plaintiff was
asked to produce a copy of the receipt for the television in his possession
and plaintiff refused to provide this receipt. Further, Walmart and its
employees complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Id.). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 8: Please describe the basis, whether it be pursuant to some statute,
ordinance, regulation or other legal authority, or pursuant to some other unwritten authority
or custom, that justifies or authorizes Walmart or police officers to stop the plaintiff in this
case for the purpose of requesting to see his receipt of purchase at Walmart in connection
with this incident.
Confrontation is defined as “[a] face-to-face disagreement between two people or groups.”
Black’s Law Dictionary (Bryan A. Garner ed., 10th ed. 2009).
5
5

Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague and overbroad, and specifically is
overbroad as to the phrase “stop.” Further, this interrogatory assumes there
was a “stop.” Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart and its employees
complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Id. at pp. 5-6). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe in detail the investigation conducted by Walmart
employees to determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the plaintiff’s possession of the
television found in his possession at the time of the stop before any decision or
determination was made to take the television from the plaintiff.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, and assumes that there
was a “stop” or that this defendant made a “decision” or “determination” to
“take the television from the plaintiff.” Without waiving the foregoing,
plaintiff was asked to produce a copy of the receipt for the television in his
possession and plaintiff refused to provide this receipt.

(Id. at p. 6). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, the motion to
compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 10: Did the police officers conduct any independent investigation to
determine if the plaintiff had in fact purchased the television in his possession before it was
taken from him at the time of the incident? And if so, please detail such investigation.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, potentially seeks
information protected by the attorney client and/or work product privileges,
and is not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible
evidence. Without waiving the foregoing, this defendant is not affiliated
with the Winter Haven Police Department and any information regarding
any “investigation” conducted by the Winter Haven Police Department is
not in the possession of this defendant.

(Id.). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 11: Was the television in the possession of the plaintiff at the time he
was stopped attempting to leave Walmart determined to be lawfully possessed by plaintiff
or unlawfully possessed by plaintiff at the time it was taken from him at Walmart?
6

Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, assumes plaintiff was “stopped”, and
further assumes that defendant took a television from him. Without waiving
the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to produce a copy of the receipt for the
television in his possession and plaintiff refused to produce this receipt.

(Id.). This answer is not responsive, and does not answer the question posed. To cure the alleged
vagueness of the interrogatory, the term “stopped” shall be replaced with the phrase “asked for his
receipt.” Defendant Walmart shall provide an amended response to this interrogatory no later than
November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 15: Please state in detail the store policy of Walmart and the Walmart
store where the incident took place that incorporates the concept that Walmart customers
should be stopped or otherwise asked to display their receipt of purchase as they complete
their checkout or otherwise begin to exit the Walmart store. Please include the description
of the manner in which Walmart employees are instructed to make such stop or inquiry and
what direction or instructions Walmart employees are given when such customer fails or
refuses to show or display their receipt.
Response:

Objection, this request [sic] is vague, over broad, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the
request [sic] is vague as to the term “stopped.” Without waiving the
foregoing, policies and procedure believed to be responsive to this request
[sic] will be forwarded to counsel upon the entering of a joint stipulation as
to confidentiality of documents produced via discovery.

(Id. at pp. 7-8). This answer is not responsive. This interrogatory is not vague as it specifically
states, “stopped or otherwise asked to display their receipt of purchase.” (Id. at p. 7) (emphasis
added). In addition, Defendant Walmart cannot condition its duty to participate in discovery on
Plaintiff executing a confidentiality agreement. If Defendant Walmart believes certain discovery
is subject to special protection, it may move the Court for entry of a protective order upon making
the appropriate showing under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26.6 To date, no such order has
6

The Court reminds the parties that they are encouraged to reach their own agreement as
to confidentiality, without the need for judicial involvement. As stated in the Case Management
and Scheduling Order:
7

been entered. Further, the Court notes that the response states that documents will be “forwarded
to counsel” upon entering a joint stipulation as to confidentiality. Under the circumstances, this is
nonsensical to the extent that the “counsel” referenced is Plaintiff’s counsel because Plaintiff is
currently proceeding pro se. Therefore, Defendant Walmart shall provide an amended response to
this interrogatory no later than November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 16: What instructions or directions are Walmart employees given as to
the manner and circumstances of detaining customers who refuse or fail to show their
receipt of purchase and what, if any, investigation does Walmart expect or instruct their
employees to conduct at such times?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, and not reasonably
calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
[sic] is vague as to the term “detaining.” Without waiving the foregoing,
policies and procedure believed to be responsive to this request [sic] will be
forwarded to counsel upon the entering of a joint stipulation as to
confidentiality of documents produced via discovery.

(Doc. 84-1, p. 8). This answer is not responsive. The term “detaining” is not vague.7 In addition,
as stated above, Defendant Walmart cannot condition its duty to participate in discovery on
Plaintiff executing a confidentiality agreement. If Defendant Walmart believes certain discovery
is subject to special protection, it may move the Court for entry of a protective order upon making

The parties may reach their own agreement regarding the designation of materials
as “confidential.” There is no need for the Court to endorse the confidentiality
agreement. The Court discourages unnecessary stipulated motions for a protective
order. The Court will enforce stipulated and signed confidentiality agreements.
Each confidentiality agreement or order shall provide, or shall be deemed to
provide, that “no party shall file a document under seal without first having
obtained an order granting leave to file under seal on a showing of particularized
need.
(Doc. 65, p. 4).
Detention is defined as “[a]n act or instance of holding a person in custody; confinement
or compulsory delay.” Black’s Law Dictionary (Bryan A. Garner ed., 10th ed. 2009).
8
7

the appropriate showing. Again, the Court notes that the response states that documents will be
“forwarded to counsel” upon entering a joint stipulation as to confidentiality.

Under the

circumstances, this is nonsensical to the extent that the “counsel” referenced is Plaintiff’s counsel
because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Defendant Walmart shall provide an amended response to
this interrogatory no later than November 28, 2017.
B.

Interrogatories to Defendant Wood
Interrogatory No. 3: Was the initial stop of the plaintiff at Walmart during any
time of the incident in this case made by one or more police officer or Walmart
store employees and identify the individual or individuals make such initial stop.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The
interrogatory is also vague as to the term/phrase “initial stop” and
assumes that plaintiff was stopped.

Interrogatory No. 4: If the initial stop of the plaintiff at the time of the incident
was not by a police officer, how and for what purpose were any police officers
called upon to assist in the stop or further processing or confrontation with the
plaintiff.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for
speculation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. The interrogatory is also vague as to the terms/phrases
“initial stop”, “processing”, “confrontation”, and assumes that
plaintiff was stopped.

Interrogatory No. 5: To the best of your knowledge whether based on personal
observation or conversations learned after the fact, who stopped the plaintiff as he
was departing Walmart with a television and what was the purpose of this initial
stop?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for
speculation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. The interrogatory is also vague as to the term/phrase
“stopped”, and assumes that plaintiff was stopped.

9

(Doc. 82-1, pp. 4-5). In response to Interrogatory Nos. 3-5, Defendant Wood provides the same
objection to the use of the word “stop,” in that Plaintiff was not stopped but asked to provide his
purchase receipt. (Doc. 98, pp. 7-8). Throughout these interrogatories, Defendant Wood shall
substitute the action of “stop” with “requesting the purchase receipt.” All other objections raised
as to Interrogatory Nos. 3-5, are overruled. Defendant Wood shall provide amended responses to
these interrogatories no later than November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 6: What was the authority or basis for the initial stop of the
plaintiff at the time of the incident, including any legal basis or some other custom
or store policy of Walmart?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for
speculation and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. The interrogatory is also vague as to the term/phrase
“initial stop.” Without waiving the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to
produce a copy of the receipt for the television in his possession and
he refused to do so. Further, Walmart and its employees complied
with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Doc. 82-1, p. 5). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 7: After you or any other police officer arrived at the scene
where the plaintiff was stopped or after the stopping of the plaintiff, please describe
in detail the investigation that you or any other Walmart employee or police officer
conducted as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the plaintiff’s possession of the
television found in his possession at that time before any decision or determination
was made to take the television from the plaintiff, including the identity of the
employee or officer or individual conducting such investigation.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for
speculation, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. Further, this defendant is not a police officer. In addition,
the interrogatory is vague as to the term “stopped”, assumes that
there was a “stop”, and assumes that this defendant was involved in
the “decision or determination” to take the television. Without
waiving the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to produce a copy of the
receipt for the television in his possession and plaintiff refused to
10

provide this receipt.
(Id.). In response to Interrogatory No. 7, Defendant Wood objects to the use of the word “stop,”
in that Plaintiff was not stopped but asked to provide his purchase receipt. (Doc. 98, p. 9). In
addition, Defendant Wood contends the interrogatory is vague because she is not a police officers
and that it improperly assumes she was involved in taking the television from Plaintiff. (Id.).
Defendant Wood shall substitute the action of “stop” with “requesting the purchase receipt.” All
other objections raised as to Interrogatory No. 7, are overruled as the interrogatory does not
indicate that Defendant Wood is a police officer or that she personally took the television from
Plaintiff. Defendant Wood shall provide amended responses to this interrogatory no later than
November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 8: Did you or anyone to your knowledge conduct any investigation to
determine if the plaintiff had in fact purchased the television in his possession before it was
taken from him at the time of the incident? And if so, please detail such investigation and
the result.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for speculation, and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. In addition, the
interrogatory assumes that this defendant was involved in the decision to
take the television. Without waiving the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to
produce a copy of the receipt for the television in his possession and plaintiff
refused to provide this receipt.

(Doc. 82-1, pp. 5-6). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to this interrogatory is denied.
Interrogatory No. 9: Was the television in the possession of the plaintiff at the time he
was stopped leaving Walmart determined to be lawfully possessed by plaintiff or
unlawfully possessed by plaintiff at the time it was taken from him at Walmart and what is
that determination based on?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, and assumes that this
defendant was involved in the decision to take the television. Without
waiving the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to produce a copy of the receipt
11

for the television in his possession and plaintiff refused to provide this
receipt.
(Id. at p. 6). This answer is not responsive, and does not answer the question posed. To cure the
alleged vagueness of the interrogatory, the term “stopped” shall be replaced with the phrase “asked
for his receipt.” Defendant Wood shall provide an amended response to this interrogatory no later
than November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 12: Please state in detail the conversation had by you or anyone else
and the plaintiff at any time during the incident including statements made by the officers
to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s responses or statements to the officers.
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for speculation, and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Further, this
Defendant has no affiliation with the Winter Haven Police Department and
cannot respond on behalf of that department or its officers. Without waiving
the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to produce a copy of the receipt for the
television in his possession and plaintiff refused to provide this receipt.

(Id. at pp. 6-7). This answer is not responsive and Defendant Wood’s boilerplate objections are
overruled. Defendant Wood shall provide an amended response to this interrogatory no later than
November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 13: Please state in detail the conversations had by and between you and
anyone else at the time of the incident whether in the presence of the plaintiff or not,
identifying individuals involved in the conversation.
Response:

Objection, this request [sic] is vague and overbroad as to time and scope
and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.

(Id. at p. 7). As drafted, this interrogatory is overbroad. Thus, it will be limited to only those
conversations relating to the subject incident. Defendant Wood shall provide an amended response
to this interrogatory no later than November 28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 14: By whom was the plaintiff escorted out of the Walmart store and
why and under what legal authority?
12

Response:

Objection, this request [sic] is vague, over broad, calls for speculation, and
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further, the request [sic] is vague as to the term “escorted.”

(Id.). This answer is not responsive and Defendant Wood’s boilerplate objections are overruled.
Defendant Wood shall provide an amended response to this interrogatory no later than November
28, 2017.
Interrogatory No. 15: What was the factual basis upon which you or any other Walmart
employee or police officer determined that the television in the possession of the plaintiff
at the time of the incident should be taken from plaintiff and not returned to him when he
was escorted off of the premises of Walmart?
Response:

Objection, this interrogatory is vague, overbroad, calls for speculation, and
is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Further, this
defendant is not a police officer. In addition, the interrogatory is vague as
to the phrase “escorted off the premises”, and assumes this defendant or any
Walmart employee was involved in the decision to take the television.
Without waiving the foregoing, plaintiff was asked to produce a copy of the
receipt for the television in his possession and plaintiff refused to provide
this receipt.

(Id.). This response sufficiently answers the question posed. Therefore, the motion to compel as
to this interrogatory is denied.
C.

Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants Walmart and Wood

Request for Production No. 1 to Defendant Walmart: Any and all photographs,
videotapes, and/or audiotapes of the incident or the scene of the incident in this case.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, without waiving
the foregoing, attached please find a disc containing a copy of video
believed to be responsive to this request.

(Doc. 85-1, p. 2). Although Defendant Walmart states that it has provided a video, it does not
address if any other photographs or audios of the subject incident are available and in its
possession. If these items exist, they shall be produced to Plaintiff no later than November 28,
13

2017. Otherwise, Defendant Walmart shall state that it does not possess the items requested.
Request for Production No. 2 to Defendants Walmart and Wood: Any and all
statements of witnesses to the incident which is the subject matter of this case.
Responses:

Objection, this Request is vague, overbroad, seeks information protected by
attorney client and or work product privileges, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing,
please see Defendant’s privilege log.

(Doc. 83-1, p. 3; Doc. 85-1, p. 3). To the extent that any witness statements are protected by
privilege, those statements should be adequately documented in a privilege log, including the
grounds for withholding them. According to Plaintiff, Defendants’ privilege logs list two written
statements and provide no further information. (Doc. 94, p. 5; Doc. 95, p. 5). This format does
not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(5)(A). If
Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with responses to these requests, or an appropriate privilege
log, they shall be provided no later than November 28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 3 to Defendants Wood and Walmart:8 A copy of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, policy or procedure you claim supported or otherwise
authorized the conduct of the Winter Haven Police Department, the officer of the Winter
Haven Police Department, or the employees of Walmart in stopping plaintiff in or around
the Walmart store in connection with the incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, this defendant is
not affiliated with the Winter Haven Police Department and cannot respond
on its behalf. In addition, this request assumes that any employee of
Walmart “stopped” Plaintiff. Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart and
its employees complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Doc. 83-1, p. 3; Doc. 85-1, p. 3). Defendants’ boilerplate objections are overruled. Although a
Florida statute is cited in the answer, Defendants do not mention providing a copy as requested.
8

Although this request is addressed in the briefs as Request for Production No. 4, it is
actually Request for Production No. 3. (Doc. 95, p. 7; Doc. 99, pp. 4-5).
14

Defendants shall provide complete responses to these requests no later than November 28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 4 to Defendant Wood: A copy of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, policy or procedure you claim supports or otherwise authorizes the conduct of
the Winter Haven Police Department, the officers of the Winter Haven Police Department,
or the employees of Walmart in taking the television from plaintiff at any time during the
incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, this defendant is
not affiliated with the Winter Haven Police Department and cannot respond
on its behalf. In addition, this request assumes that any employee of
Walmart took a television from Plaintiff. Without waiving the foregoing,
Walmart and its employees complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Doc. 83-1, p. 3). Defendant Wood’s boilerplate objections are overruled. Although a Florida
statute is cited in the answer, Defendant Wood does not mention providing a copy as requested.
Defendant Wood shall provide complete response to this request no later than November 28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 5 to Defendant Wood, No. 4 to Defendant Walmart:9 Any
and all records, reports, statements, or other documentation from or prepared by or on
behalf of Defendant, [WOOD] [WALMART], concerning the incident described in the
Complaint.
Response:

Objection, this Request is vague, overbroad, seeks information protected by
the attorney client and or work product privileges, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing,
please see Defendant’s privilege log.

(Doc. 83-1, p. 3; Doc. 85-1, p. 3). While all responsive documents may be subject to attorney
client or work product privileges, neither party has submitted a privilege log for the Court’s review.
Defendants’ boilerplate objections are overruled, and these requests seek relevant documents that
are proportional to the needs of the case. Thus, if Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with
responses to these requests, or an appropriate privilege log in compliance with Federal Rule of
9

Although this request is addressed in the briefs as Request for Production No. 5 to
Defendant Walmart, it is actually Request for Production No. 4. (Doc. 95, pp. 7-8; Doc. 99, pp.
5-6).
15

Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), they shall do so no later than November 28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 6 to Defendant Wood: Any and all documents, records,
statements, policy directives or procedures establishing or setting out any policy (formal
or otherwise), agreement or understanding in effect on the day of this incident regarding
the conduct or authority of police officers in regards to working any detail, or on or off
duty job, at the Walmart Store when the incident occurred.
Response:

Objection, this Request is vague, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart
requested and paid for officers of the Winter Haven Police Department to
be in the store at the time of the incident, and upon reason and belief, these
officers were acting within the scope of the policies of their department.

Request for Production No. 7 to Defendant Wood: Any and all documents, records,
statements, policy directives or procedures establishing or setting out any policy (formal
or otherwise), agreement or understanding in effect on the day of this incident between
Walmart and/or the Walmart store where the incident occurred and the Winter Haven
Police Department or any police officer regarding the conduct or authority of police
officers in regards to working any detail, or on or off duty job, on the premises of Walmart.
Response:

Objection, this Request is vague, overbroad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart
requested and paid for officers of the Winter Haven Police Department to
be in the store at the time of the incident, and upon reason and belief, these
officers were acting within the scope of the policies of their department.

(Doc. 83-1, pp. 3-4). As drafted, these requests are overbroad and could include a large amount
of documents that are not relevant or proportional to the issues in this case. In addition, Defendant
Wood likely does not possess all policies and procedures applicable to the officers employed by
the Winter Haven Police Department. Therefore, the requests will be narrowed to include only
those policies and procedures pertaining to the officers’ detail at Walmart on the day of the subject
incident. To the extent Defendant Wood is in possession of these documents, they should be
provided no later than November 28, 2017. If Defendant Wood is not in possession of these
documents, she must say so.

16

Request for Production No. 9 to Defendant Wood, No. 10 to Defendant Walmart: Any
and all documents, records or reports prepared by any employee or representative of
Walmart in connection with this incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, seeks information protected by
the attorney client and work product privileges, and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving
the foregoing, please see Defendant’s privilege log.

Request for Production No. 10 to Defendant Wood, No. 11 to Defendant Walmart:
Any and all documents, records or reports prepared by any employee of Walmart [,
including yourself,] regarding the taking of the plaintiff’s television and the current status
or disposition of the plaintiff’s television taken from him at the Walmart store at the time
of the incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, potentially seeks information
protected by the attorney client and work product privileges, and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further, this Request assumes that any employee of Walmart [, including
this Defendant,] was involved in taking the television from plaintiff.
Without waiving the foregoing, please see Defendant’s privilege log. In
addition, as Plaintiff has previously been advised, the television is at the
store where the alleged incident occurred.

(Doc. 83-1, pp. 3-5, Doc. 85-1, pp. 4-5). These answers are not responsive and Defendants’
boilerplate objections are overruled. If no responsive documents exit, Defendants must say so. If
documents exist but Defendants claim the documents are privileged, then Defendants must provide
Plaintiff with appropriate privilege logs in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(5)(A). Otherwise, Defendants must produce responsive documents no later than November
28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 14 to Defendant Walmart: Copies of any written policy,
procedure or memorandum of any kind whatsoever that sets forth the policy or procedure
in effect on the day of the incident that any Walmart employees are to follow regarding the
checking or verifying of customers’ receipts or other proof of purchase as customers depart
or prepare or attempt to depart the store premises. [Included in this request is anything in
writing that notifies or otherwise informs Walmart employees of any duty, requirement or
suggestion to ask customers to see a copy of their receipt of purchase as they leave or depart
the store premises].
17

Response:

Objection, this Request is vague, overbroad, potentially seeks confidential
and proprietary information, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Without waiving the foregoing, policies and
procedures believed to be responsive to this request will be forwarded to
counsel upon the entering of a joint stipulation as to confidentiality of
documents produced via discovery.

(Doc. 85-1, pp. 5-6). As stated above, Defendant Walmart cannot condition its duty to participate
in discovery on Plaintiff executing a confidentiality agreement. If Defendant Walmart believes
certain discovery is subject to special protection, it may move the Court for entry of a protective
order upon making the appropriate showing. Defendant Walmart shall provide an amended
response to this request no later than November 28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 14 to Defendant Wood, No. 15 to Defendant Walmart:
Copy of the Walmart policy and procedures manual, regardless of whatever name or
designation such manual is formally titled, which sets out the policies and procedures for
store employees, including store management that was in effect on the day of the incident.
[This request includes the manual that is given to store employees and management
personnel to notify and familiarize them with the store policies and procedures they are
expected to follow during the term of their employment]
Response:

Objection, this Request is vague, overbroad, potentially seeks confidential
and proprietary information, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Further, while the store has policies and procedures,
there is no “manual” as described in Plaintiff’s request. [Without waiving
the foregoing, none in the possession of this Defendant.]

(Doc. 83-1, pp. 5-6, Doc. 85-1, p. 6).

Defendants respond that no “manual” exists,

as described. (Doc. 99, p. 10). In addition, a manual covering all “policies and procedures” for
store employees on the day of the subject incident is overbroad. The Court is satisfied with
Defendants’ responses and Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to these requests is denied.
Request for Production No. 15 to Defendant Wood: Copy of any document or other
thing in writing that sets forth any authority or other direction or suggestion in effect on
the day of the incident that store employees are to stop customers as they depart the store
premises of Walmart to request a receipt of purchase
18

Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
assumes that any Walmart employee “stopped” plaintiff or any other
customer. Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart and its employees
complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

Request for Production No. 16 to Defendant Wood, No. 17 to Defendant Walmart:
Copy of any document or other thing in writing that sets forth any authority or other
direction or suggestion in effect on the day of the incident that advises or authorizes store
employees to take the property of customers who are unable or unwilling to display or
show a receipt of purchase of such property.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
assumes that any Walmart employee took the property of plaintiff or any
other customer. Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart and its employees
complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Doc. 83-1, p. 6, Doc. 85-1, pp. 6-7). This answer is not responsive and Defendant’s boilerplate
objections are overruled. If no responsive documents exits, Defendant must say so. In addition,
if the cited Florida statute is the sole responsive document, Defendant must explicitly say so and
provide a copy as requested. Defendants shall provide amended responses no later than November
28, 2017.
Request for Production No. 17 to Defendant Wood, No. 18 to Walmart: Copy of any
document or other thing in writing that sets forth any agreement or understanding between
defendant, WALMART, or its agents or employees and any defendant in this case other
than Walmart employees, EDWARD CAMP, CHARLES CARAWAY and KRISTINE
WOOD entered into or prepared within five (5) years prior to the date of the incident or
prepared or entered into after the day of the incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague and over broad as to time and scope of the
subject matter requested, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.

(Doc. 83-1, p. 6, Doc. 85-1, p. 7). These requests are overbroad as they potentially seeks a large
amount of documents that are not relevant and proportional to this action. Because these requests

19

broadly seek documents not proportional to the needs of this case, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
denied as to these requests.
Request for Production No. 18 to Defendant Wood: Copy of any document or other
thing in writing that sets forth anything supporting or otherwise authorizing your conduct
in stopping the plaintiff or participating in the stopping of the plaintiff in or at the WalMart store at the time of the incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
assumes that this Defendant or any employee “stopped” plaintiff. Without
waiving the foregoing, Walmart and its employees complied with Fla. Stat.
§ 812.015(3).

Request for Production No. 19 to Defendant Wood: Copy of any document or other
thing in writing that sets forth anything supporting or otherwise authorizing you or any
other Walmart employee or police officer to take the television in plaintiff’s possession at
the time of the incident.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
assumes that this Defendant or any Walmart employee took a television
from plaintiff. In addition, this Defendant is not affiliated with nay [sic]
police agency and cannot respond on their behalf. Without waiving the
foregoing, Walmart and its employees complied with Fla. Stat. §
812.015(3).

Request for Production No. 20 to Defendant Wood: Copy of any document or other
thing in writing that sets forth anything supporting or otherwise authorizing you or any
other Walmart employee to stop a Walmart customer and request a copy of any store receipt
of purchase at any time whatsoever.
Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
assumes that this Defendant or any Walmart employee “stopped” plaintiff.
Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart and its employees complied with
Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

Request for Production No. 21 to Defendant Wood: Copy of any document or other
thing in writing that sets forth anything supporting or otherwise authorizing you or any
other Walmart employee to take property in the possession of a Walmart customer from
such customer.

20

Response:

Objection, this request is vague, over broad, and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the request
assumes that this Defendant or any Walmart employee took property from
plaintiff. Without waiving the foregoing, Walmart and its employees
complied with Fla. Stat. § 812.015(3).

(Doc. 83-1, pp. 6-7). In these requests, Plaintiff repetitively seeks all policies and procedures
relating to Walmart and the City of Winter Haven Police Department’s authority to request a
customer’s purchase receipt and the consequences of failing to provide said receipt. If the cited
Florida statute is the sole responsive document, Defendant Wood must explicitly say so and
provide a copy of the document as requested. To the extent other responsive documents exist, they
must also be provided no later than November 21, 2017. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel as to Request for Production Nos. 18-21 to Defendant Wood, is denied.
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Answers to

Interrogatories from Defendant, Kristina Wood (Doc. 92), Amended Motion to Compel Answers
to Interrogatories from Defendant, Walmart (Doc. 93), Amended Motion to Compel Responses
and to Compel Production from Defendant, Kristina Wood (Doc. 94), and Amended Motion to
Compel Responses and to Compel Production from Defendant, Walmart (Doc. 95) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part as provided in the body of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 7th day of November, 2017.

cc: Pro se Plaintiff
21