WRIGHT v. YOUNG, et al

Filing 47

ORDER: 45 Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and motion to file objections to motion to compel are GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs arguments have been considered by the Court. Plaintiffs motion for sanctions against Def endant Young is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the Courts denial of attorneys fees is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff must provide full and complete amended responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 6 and 13 by 8/20/2012. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 8/6/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

MORRIS YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of
Orders (Doc. 39, 41, 43); Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Morris Young; Motion
to File Objections to Motion to Compel Out-of-Time; and, Objections to Motion to
Compel Answer to Interrogatories.” (Doc. 45.) Defendant Young has filed a response.
(Doc. 46.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be granted in part and
denied in part.
Plaintiff previously filed a number of discovery motions, which the Court
construed as motions for issuance of subpoenas for the production of documents from
non-parties. (Docs. 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 42.) The Court denied each of these motions.
(Docs. 39, 41, 43.) Plaintiff now requests reconsideration of the Court’s orders. This
request is granted to the extent that the Court takes Plaintiff’s arguments into account in
the present order.
Plaintiff claims that his filings were not intended to request issuance of
subpoenas. Rather, Plaintiff says that he was “provid[ing] notice to the parties and non-

Page 2 of 5

parties” as “a time and cost saving request,” so that the non-parties could lodge
objections prior to service of a subpoena (Doc. 45, at 2.) Insofar as Plaintiff believes
that he can serve subpoenas on non-parties without Court approval, he is mistaken. As
the Court noted in its prior orders denying Plaintiff’s discovery motions, a pro se plaintiff
may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of
documents from a non-party only upon Court approval. The Court repeated this—for
the fourth time—in its order forbidding Plaintiff to mail subpoenas to non-parties. (Doc.
44.) Plaintiff has not received Court approval for issuance of subpoenas, and it is
improper for him to send subpoenas that have not been issued by the Court directly to
non-parties. This order will serve as the final warning to Plaintiff to cease mailing
subpoenas to non-parties without Court approval. If he continues to do so, he will be
sanctioned. Plaintiff is once again advised that he may apply to the Court for
subpoenas, but such a request must be accompanied by a description of what records
he is seeking from each non-party and what relevance the records have to his claim. In
the instant motion, Plaintiff fails to provide such information, stating only that the
records he seeks are “related to discoverable material of parties to the action.” (Doc.
45, at 4.)
Defendant Young filed a motion to compel on July 16, 2012, based on Plaintiff’s
incomplete answers to three interrogatories. (Doc. 32.) The Court granted the motion
and ordered Plaintiff to file complete answers to the interrogatories. (Doc. 39.) This
order was issued prior to a response to the motion to compel. Plaintiff now requests
permission to file objections to the motion to compel out of time. This motion is due to
be granted to the extent that this order has taken Plaintiff’s objections into account.
Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff makes two primary objections to the motion to compel: 1) that much of
the information that Defendant Young requested is in his own possession and control;
and 2) that information not in Defendant Young’s possession and control should be
subpoened from non-parties. The interrogatories in question relate to Plaintiff’s criminal
history and medical history. Plaintiff says that he has attempted, in his motion, to
provide complete responses to the interrogatories to the best of his ability, by listing as
much of his criminal history as he remembers and by providing the medical records in
his possession. Defendant Young, in response, says that he does not have access to
Plaintiff’s complete medical records. He says that he has asked Plaintiff to sign a
release to facilitate discovery of the medical records but that Plaintiff has not done so.
Defendant Young does not indicate whether he has access to Plaintiff’s criminal history,
or whether Plaintiff’s response remains inadequate.
After considering Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant Young’s response, the
Court orders Plaintiff to serve an amended response to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 6, and
13 on Defendant Young. This response should provide as much detail as possible
about Plaintiff’s criminal history and medical history. However, Defendant Young is also
entitled to obtain Plaintiff’s complete relevant medical records from the Department of
Corrections and Plaintiff’s doctor. Defendant Young accurately points out that obtaining
these records would be greatly simplified by Plaintiff’s signing a release, so that his
records may be sent directly to Defendant Young by the medical provider. Defendant
Young says that he has sent Plaintiff a release to be signed. Plaintiff should sign the
release and return it to Defendant Young to facilitate the process of obtaining his
medical records.

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant Young, apparently based on
Defendant Young’s filing of a motion to compel and request for attorney’s fees. The
motion for sanction is without merit and due to be denied.
Finally, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court’s denial of attorney’s fees
in its order granting Defendant Young’s motion to compel. (Doc. 39.) This request
appears to contemplate that the Court granted attorney’s fees to Defendant Young in
connection with the motion to compel. However, the Court denied Defendant Young’s
request for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of this issue is
therefore denied as moot.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Orders (Doc. 39, 41, 43); Motion
for Sanctions Against Defendant Morris Young; Motion to File Objections
to Motion to Compel Out-of-Time; and, Objections to Motion to Compel
Answer to Interrogatories,” Doc. 45, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and motion to file objections to
the motion to compel are GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff’s
arguments have been considered by the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions against Defendant Young is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of attorney’s fees is DENIED as
moot.

(2)

Plaintiff must provide full and complete amended responses to

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Page 5 of 5

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 6 and 13 by August 20, 2012.
DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of August 2012.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ