Archer v. City of Winter Haven et al
Filing
77
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion to Compel Better Responses to Request to Produce; granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 9/1/2017. (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 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Better Responses
to Request to Produce (Doc. 69), Defendants’ Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories
(Doc. 70), and Plaintiff’s responses in opposition thereto (Docs. 75, 76).
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. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff alleges that on November 26, 2015, he purchased a
television at a Walmart store and, as he was leaving the store, an unidentified Walmart employee
requested to see a receipt for the purchase of the television. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff refused to
produce the receipt. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently prevented from leaving the
store for 10 to 15 minutes, threatened with theft and trespass charges, and then asked to leave the
store without his property. (Id. at pp. 3-4).
Plaintiff brings the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) “Violations of Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments[;]” (2) “Deprivation of Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 USC 1983[;]” (3)
1
“Violation of 18 USC 241, 242[;] Conspiracy Against Rights and 42 USC 1985(3)[;]” (4) “Florida
State Law Negligence[;]” and (5) “Wrongful Imprisonment in Violation of Florida 787.02 False
Imprisonment[.]” (Doc. 32).
On June 5, 2017, Defendants City of Winter Haven, Sgt. Dan Gaskin, and Sgt. Ken Nichols
served Plaintiff with their First Request for Production and Interrogatories (Docs. 69-B, 70-B),
and Plaintiff responded (Docs. 69-C, 70-C). On July 12, 2017, Defendants filed the instant
motions to compel arguing that a number of Plaintiff’s discovery responses were inadequate.
(Docs. 69, 70). On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed responses in opposition to Defendants’ motions.
(Doc. 75, 76). 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). Relying on this definition of the scope of proper discovery, the Court
will address the discovery requests and responses at issue.
Here, Defendants seek to compel better responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and
2
17, as well as Request for Production Nos. 10, 11, 12, 31, 32, and 34.1 Essentially, there are five
categories of discovery requests at issue: (1) discovery related to Plaintiff’s mental and physical
health; (2) discovery related to Plaintiff’s prior and subsequent arrests or detentions; (3) discovery
related to other lawsuits involving Plaintiff; (4) requests for personal information; and (5) requests
for damages calculation information. The Court will address each category of discovery requests
in turn.
A.
Plaintiff’s Mental and Physical Health
As to Defendants’ discovery requests seeking Plaintiff’s medical records and history, the
following requests and responses are at issue:
Request for Production No. 10: Any and all medical reports, opinions, or other
written memoranda from doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners and health
care providers reflecting any and all care, treatment, or evaluation provided to
[Plaintiff] for the last ten years.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Request for Production No. 11: Any and all hospital records reflecting any and
all care, treatment, or evaluation provided to [Plaintiff] for the last ten years,
including outpatient records and emergency room records.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Request for Production No. 12: Any and all reports, opinions, or other written
memoranda from any and all psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social
workers, psychiatric nurses and mental health counselors reflecting any and all care,
treatment, and evaluation provided to [Plaintiff] for the last ten years.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Interrogatory No. 13: List the names and business addresses of all other
physicians, medical facilities or other health care providers by whom or at which
Defendants also sought to compel the CD referenced in Plaintiff’s response to
Defendants’ Request for Production No. 14. However, Plaintiff represents that the CD at issue has
since been provided. (Doc. 75, p. 3). Therefore, the motion to compel as to this request is moot
and will not be addressed in this Order.
1
3
you have been examined or treated in the past ten (10) years; and state as to each
the dates of examination or treatment and the condition or injury for which you
were examined or treated.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Plaintiff seeks mental anguish and emotional distress damages as a result of the subject
incident. As such, Plaintiff has put his mental health at issue and requests for supporting
documentation as to his current or pre-existing mental condition are relevant. However, Plaintiff
has not put his physical health at issue and so those discovery requests, as drafted, are overbroad.
In addition, the ten years of information sought is not an appropriate timeframe and not
proportionate to the needs of this case. As such, the Court will narrow Defendants’ Request for
Production Nos. 10, 11, and 12, as well as Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 13, to include only those
medical records and information pertaining to Plaintiff’s mental health, dated on or after
November 26, 2012. Plaintiff shall amend his responses to these narrowed requests no later than
September 22, 2017.
B.
Prior and Subsequent Arrests or Detentions
As to requests for discovery related to Plaintiff’s prior and subsequent arrests or detentions,
the following discovery requests and responses are at issue:
Request for Production No. 31: Any and all court records or police reports
reflecting any arrest or detention of [Plaintiff] at any time.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Request for Production No. 34: Any and all police reports or narratives regarding
any incident, other than the subject incident, reported to the police by [Plaintiff]
regarding any store, business, or governmental entity.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Interrogatory No. 5: Were you ever arrested or detained by any law enforcement
officer, law enforcement agency, or any store employee for any reason whatsoever
4
before 11/26/2015? If so, please state, in complete detail, the date of each such
arrest or detention; the state, county, or municipality in which you were arrested or
detained; the charges for which you were arrested or detained; the law enforcement
agencies or stores by whom you were arrested or detained; whether you were
incarcerated for any length of time whatsoever as a result of each such arrest; the
length of time that you were incarcerated following such arrest; and the disposition
of each and every charge resulting from each and every such arrest or detention.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Interrogatory No. 6: Were you ever arrested or detained by any law enforcement
officer, law enforcement agency, or any store employee for any reason whatsoever
after 11/26/2015? If so, please state, in complete detail, the date of each such arrest
or detention; the state, county, or municipality in which you were arrested or
detained; the charges for which you were arrested or detained; the law enforcement
agencies or stores by whom you were arrested or detained; whether you were
incarcerated for any length of time whatsoever as a result of each such arrest; the
length of time that you were incarcerated following each such arrest; and the
disposition of each and every charge resulting from each and every such arrest or
detention.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Defendants argue that evidence related to Plaintiff’s arrests and detentions is relevant
because Plaintiff is seeking damages for mental anguish and emotional distress due to his being
prevented from leaving the store for 10 to 15 minutes. Defendants cite to Bryan v. Jones, 519 F.2d
44, 46 (5th Cir.1975), rev’d and remanded on another issue, 530 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir.1976), for this
proposition. However, this case is distinguishable from Bryan. In Bryan, the plaintiff was
incarcerated wrongfully for 36 days, and his emotional damages were for emotional “suffering
caused by the very fact of incarceration.” Id. Here, in contrast, Plaintiff alleges emotional trauma
suffered at the scene of incident, rather than the fact of incarceration. Thus, the instant case was
not the scenario contemplated by the court in Bryan. See Coney v. Cobas, 129 F. App’x 561, 562
(11th Cir. 2005).
Defendants further argue that evidence of subsequent and prior arrests or detentions would
5
demonstrate Plaintiff’s pattern, plan, motive or modus operandi. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b):
(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to
prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person
acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible
for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident....
The Court agrees that evidence related to similar incidents that demonstrate Plaintiff’s pattern,
plan, motive or modus operandi, is relevant. However, as drafted, Defendants requests are
overboard. For example, Defendants’ Request for Production No. 31 seeks “[a]ny and all court
records or police reports reflecting any arrest or detention of [Plaintiff] at any time.” Likewise,
Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6, request information related to Plaintiff being arrested or detained “for
any reason.” Further, the requests are not limited in time. Therefore, these requests are not
proportional to the needs of the case.
As to Defendants’ Request for Production Nos. 31 and 34, these requests shall be narrowed
to include only those court records or police reports reflecting any arrest, detention, or incident
involving the refusal to show proof of purchase at a store or business, within the last ten years.
Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6, shall also be narrowed to include only situations wherein Plaintiff
refused to provide proof of purchase at a store or business within the last ten years. Plaintiff shall
amend his responses to these narrowed requests no later than September 22, 2017.
C.
Other Lawsuits
As to Defendants’ discovery requests seeking information involving other lawsuits
involving Plaintiff, the following discovery requests and responses are at issue:
6
Request for Production No. 32: Any and all pleadings, complaints, deposition
transcripts, hearing transcripts or court filings regarding any lawsuit, other than the
subject lawsuit, filed by you against any store, business, governmental entity, city
or county.
Response:
Objection, not relevant.
Interrogatory No. 17: Please state if you have ever been a party, either plaintiff or
defendant, in a lawsuit other than the present matter and if so, state whether you
were a plaintiff or defendant, the nature of the action, and the date and court in
which such suit was filed.
Response:
(a) Yes, (b) Plaintiff, (c) civil suit for neighbor’s barking dog, (d)
California Superior Court at Bakersfield, CA, (e) 2015
Defendants represent that Plaintiff has a history of being detained or arrested at stores and
subsequently suing those stores. These lawsuits are relevant for the reasons stated above.
Although Plaintiff argues that Defendants are able to get this information on their own, this
argument has been rejected by numerous courts in this district. See Pepperwood of Naples Condo.
Ass’n, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 2:10-cv-753-FTM-36, 2011 WL 3841557, at *4
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2011); Cent. Transp. Int’l, Inc. v. Glob. Advantage Distribution, Inc., No.
2:06-cv-401-FTM-29SPC, 2007 WL 3124715, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2007).
As such, Plaintiff is compelled to provide more complete responses to Defendants’ Request
for Production No. 32 and Interrogatory No. 17, with those requests narrowed to include only those
lawsuits involving stores and businesses filed within the last ten years. Plaintiff shall provide these
more complete responses no later than September 22, 2017.
D.
Plaintiff’s personal identifying information
The following interrogatory is at issue concerning Plaintiff’s personal identifying
information:
Interrogatory No. 3: List all former names and when you were known by those
7
names. State all addresses where you have lived for the past ten (10) years, the dates
you lived at each address, your Social Security number, your date of birth, and if
you are or have ever been married, the name and address of your spouse or spouses.
If divorced, please state the County in which you were divorced and the case
number of the dissolution action.
Response:
No former names (a) POB 4054 Vallejo, CA, 2408 Bladen St.
Bakersfield, CA, POB 635 Waverly, FL (b) Dates are various in all
locations (c) SS#, Objection private information and not relevant (d)
married (yes) Keitha Darquea, same addresses as mine.
Defendants request that the Court compel Plaintiff to provide proper addresses and his
social security number. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 clearly contemplates discovery of the
addresses and telephone numbers as integral to the identity of individuals likely to have
discoverable information regarding the parties’ claims or defenses.
See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A). Consequently, it is reasonable for Defendants to request—and for Plaintiff to have
to provide—his address information. In addition, as to Plaintiff’s social security number, Plaintiff
has not demonstrated a need for this information to be confidential. Gober v. City of Leesburg,
197 F.R.D. 519, 521, fn 2 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“It should be noted, in the Court’s experience, that
the discovery of background information such as name, address, telephone number, date of birth,
driver’s license number, and social security number is considered routine information in almost all
civil discovery matters.”). Thus, Plaintiff is compelled to amend his response to Interrogatory No.
3 to include the requested address information and his social security number, no later than
September 22, 2017. No document containing personal information shall be filed on the public
docket unless that personal information has been redacted.
E.
Damages calculations
Interrogatory No. 10: List each item of expense or damage, other than loss of
income or earning capacity, that you claim to have incurred as a result of the
incident described in the complaint, giving for each item, the date incurred, the
name and business address to whom each was paid or is owed, and the goods or
8
services for which each was incurred.
Response:
The television that was stolen from me by WalMart and Winter
Haven Police. Mental anguish caused by the violation of my civil
rights.
Plaintiff has plead a variety of damages against Defendants, including a claim for
$200,000. (Doc. 32, pp. 26-27). Plaintiff is obligated to specifically describe the nature of all
damages being sought, the amount of damages being sought, and the methods used to determine
those amounts. See Dunstan v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 307-cv-713-J-32TEM, 2008 WL
2025313, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2008) (“Plaintiff should be able to make a good faith estimate
of damages and methods of calculations based on the information available at this stage of the
litigation, while reserving the right to amend his calculation.”); LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners,
G.P., No. 8:06-cv-1216-T-TBM, 2007 WL 2446900, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2007) (same).
Thus, Plaintiff is compelled to amend his response to Interrogatory No. 10, no later than
September 22, 2017.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED:
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Better Responses to Request to Produce (Doc. 69) and
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories (Doc. 70) are GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part as provided in the body of this Order.2
Each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in relation to this
Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P 37(a)(5)(C).
2
9
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 1st day of September, 2017.
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?