White v. DeLaoja et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying as moot 106 Motion to Compel interrogatory responses; granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion to Compel complete interrogatory responses. Plaintiff has twenty-days to serve supplemental interrogatory responses on Defendant as detailed in the order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 7/22/2011. (dkc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
STEPHEN L. WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DET. DE LA OSA,
Defendant.
_______________________________________
ORDER ON DEFENDANT DE LA OSA’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
This cause is before me on two motions to compel filed by Defendant Detective Rolando
De La Osa. 1 (DE# 106; DE# 107.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s latter-filed
motion to compel (DE# 107) is GRANTED IN PART and Defendant’s earlier-filed motion to
compel (DE# 106) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff Stephen L. White shall have twenty days
to serve supplemental interrogatory answers on Defendant, but Defendant’s request for
attorney’s fees is DENIED.
I.

Background

This is an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 by Plaintiff against Defendant, a Miami-Dade County Police Department detective.
(DE# 91.) Pursuant to the District Court’s order on January 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint and Defendant filed an answer and affirmative defenses on February 15,
2011, and March 11, 2011, respectively.

1

The District Court referred these motions to the Undersigned for resolution pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules of the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida.
(DE# 108.)

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
Defendant then served Plaintiff with his First Set of Interrogatories on March 29, 2011.
(DE# 107, p. 1.) Instead of responding to these interrogatories, Plaintiff filed a request for an
additional thirty days to respond. (DE# 102.) The Court granted this motion in part by giving
Plaintiff an additional ten days to respond. (DE# 105.) Plaintiff’s responses were, as a result,
due no later than May 28, 2011. (Id.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff did not respond by that
date and therefore Defendant filed the first motion to compel responses on June 16, 2011. (DE#
106.)

Plaintiff did eventually attempt to respond on or about June 10, 2011, by sending

responses to the Clerk of Court. (DE# 107-1.) Defendant states that on June 21, 2011, he
eventually received Plaintiff’s responses directly from the Clerk’s Office. (DE# 107, p. 2.)
Defendant filed his second motion to compel more complete responses after reviewing
the late-received responses. (Id.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatory
numbers 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, and 21 are incomplete and inadequate. Plaintiff did not file a
response to either motion to compel and the time for filing a response is now expired.
II.

Analysis
a. Interrogatory Number 1

This interrogatory requests Plaintiff to:
Provide the name, address, telephone number, place of
employment and job title of any person who has, claims to have, or
whom you believe may have, knowledge or information pertaining
to any fact alleged in the pleadings filed in this action, or any fact
underlying the subject matter of this action. For each person, state
the specific nature and substance of the knowledge or information
the person may have.
(DE# 107, p. 2.) In response, Plaintiff provided several names, addresses, and other pieces of
witness-identifying information, as well as descriptions of what these witnesses knew. (DE#
107-2, pp. 5-7.) Plaintiff added that “For other ‘names, addresses, (etc) . . . whom . . . may have

2

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
knowledge or information pertaining to any fact alleged in the pleadings . . .’ See State v. White,
No. 04-5266 (State’s Discovery).” (Id. at 6-7 (ellipsis in original).) Plaintiff added “These
records are readily accessible to the Defendant.” (Id. at p. 7.)
Defendant states that he is not an employee of the State Attorney’s Office and therefore
does not already have this document. Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be required to
provide more specific answers containing the precise information requested. The Court agrees
with Defendant.
If there are, in fact, other witnesses not specifically mentioned in Plaintiff’s response,
Defendant is entitled to know the requested categories of information. Consequently, Plaintiff
shall serve a supplemental response on Defendant within 20 days of this order.

In the

supplemental response, Plaintiff must provide the requested information regarding any witnesses
not already specifically identified in his original response. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to
comply with this order, he may be barred from calling these witnesses at trial.
b. Interrogatory Number 5
This interrogatory requests Plaintiff to:
Identify each and every judicial proceeding with which you have
been involved, including both civil and criminal actions, and for
each, identify the style; your status as plaintiff, defendant, or
witness; the case number; jurisdiction; a general description of the
subject matter of the action; your involvement in the action; and
the disposition of the action, if any, including any monetary
compensation received by any party to the civil case(s), or any
convictions and/or sentences imposed on you or any party with
whom you are or were affiliated in the criminal case(s).
(DE# 107, p. 3.) In response, Plaintiff merely attached a two-page printout dated March 6, 2004,
from the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Court’s website. (DE# 107-2, pp. 11-13.) This printout
only contains information about a single criminal case where Plaintiff was the defendant.

3

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
Defendant argues this response is inadequate and Plaintiff should be compelled to
provide more information because the printout does not describe Plaintiff’s involvement in that
case, the printout is more than seven years old and the printout is limited to a single case in
Miami-Dade County. Defendant also notes that this document provides no information about the
present case and does not state whether Plaintiff has been involved in any civil or criminal
actions since March 6, 2004.
The Court agrees with Defendant.

Plaintiff shall serve a supplemental response to

interrogatory number 5 on Defendant within twenty days. In his supplemental response, Plaintiff
shall provide all information requested in interrogatory number 5.
c. Interrogatory Number 8
This interrogatory states:
Have you ever been arrested? If so, for each such instance please
describe the circumstances surrounding the arrest(s), including the
date of the arrest(s), the city and state where the arrest occurred,
the charge upon which you were arrested, the names of all
witnesses and/or complainants involved in the arrest(s) as well as
the names of the law enforcement personnel and agencies involved
in the arrest(s).
(DE# 107, p. 4.) Plaintiff responded only “See Interrogatory Number 5.” (DE# 107-2, p. 16.)
This response is inadequate for the same reasons that his response to interrogatory number 5 was
inadequate. Consequently, Plaintiff shall serve a supplemental response to interrogatory number
8 on Defendant within twenty days that provides all of the information requested in interrogatory
number 8.

4

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
d. Interrogatory Number 11
This interrogatory states:
Have you ever been diagnosed with or treated for a mental illness
or disorder (including depression)? If so, please state what you
were diagnosed with, the name and address of the person who
diagnosed you, and what treatment you underwent. Please include
in your answer whether you are still receiving treatment for the
illness or disorder.
(DE# 107, p. 4) Plaintiff responded “See Institution Mental Health Services for DOC & GEO. I
am still undergoing psychological treatment.” (DE# 107-2, p. 19.) Defendant argues this
response is incomplete because it does not directly answer whether Plaintiff has been diagnosed
with or is being treated for any mental illness and, if so, what the diagnosis was and who is
treating him. (DE# 107, pp. 4-5.) The Court agrees this response is incomplete. Plaintiff is
therefore ordered to serve a supplemental response to interrogatory number 11 on Defendant
within twenty days that provides all of the information requested in interrogatory number 11.
e. Interrogatory Number 12
This interrogatory states:
If you are claiming emotional or psychological injury, please state
the nature of such injury and how it impacts your life. If you have
undergone treatment or counseling for your emotional or
psychological injury, please state the name and address of the
person who treated or counseled you and state whether you are still
undergoing treatment or counseling.
(DE# 7, p. 5.) In response, Plaintiff stated “See Institution Mental health Services for DOC and
GEO.

The Plaintiff is suffering from continuance [sic] nightmares, anxiety attacks and

emotional distress.” Defendant argues that this does not fully answer the request because, for
example, it does not identify the name or address of any treatment provider. (DE# 107, p. 5.)

5

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
The Court agrees with Defendant.

Plaintiff shall serve a supplemental response to

interrogatory number 12 on Defendant within twenty days that provides all of the information
requested in interrogatory number 12.
f. Interrogatory Number 13
This interrogatory states:
Have you ever been treated by a psychiatrist or psychologist? If so,
please state the name and address of the psychiatrist or
psychologist and whether you are still undergoing treatment.
(DE# 107-2, p. 21.) Plaintiff responded simply that Defendant should “See Institution Mental
Health Services for DOC and GEO.” This response is incomplete for the same reasons that
Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatory numbers 11 and 12 are incomplete. Consequently, Plaintiff
shall serve a supplemental response on Defendant within twenty days that provides all of the
information requested in interrogatory number 13.
g. Interrogatory Number 20
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to:
Describe in detail when, where, and how you purportedly provided
Defendant with an alibi defense as described in the Third Amended
Complaint.
(DE# 107-2, p. 28.) Plaintiff responded that Defendant should “See Alibi Defense Hearing and
Ms. Sharon Prichett Chief Public Defender Investigator.” (Id.) Defendant argues that this
response “Completely fails to answer the interrogatory because it does not describe when, where,
or how Plaintiff provided an alibi defense to Defendant.” The Court agrees. Plaintiff shall
therefore serve a supplemental response on Defendant within twenty days that provides all of the
information requested in interrogatory number 20.

6

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
h. Interrogatory Number 21
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to:
Describe in detail where, and how Defendant purportedly procured
and/or manufactured Witness Dwight Mizzell.
(DE# 107-2, p. 29.) Plaintiff responded “See Interrogatory Number 9.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s answer
to Interrogatory number 9, in turn, provides:
During 2005, Dwight Mizzell did informed [sic] the Plaintiff that
the Defendant had gotten him to falsely accuse the Plaintiff. It was
not long afterward that (two or three months) that the case was
nolle prosqui. This happen [sic] at freedom supermarket, a store
on 22 Ave & Rutland St. Mizzell came up to me, first apologizing
and then explaining that in fact he was not present when the
homicide occurred, only arriving upon the crime scene after the
facts. Mizzell conveyed that the indication from the police was
that they wanted the Plaintiff convicted of the charge in the worst
way and he was promised a cash reward he never received.
(Id. at p. 17.) Plaintiff argues that this response lacks sufficient detail. The Court agrees.
While this response may not be entirely unresponsive, it is sufficiently ambiguous to
require a supplemental response. For instance, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s reference to “the
police” includes Defendant. The response is also somewhat vague in that it does not provide any
details regarding what specifically, if anything, Defendant instructed Mizzell to say. Plaintiff
shall therefore serve a supplemental response on Defendant within twenty days that provides all
of the details requested in interrogatory number 21. Plaintiff should try to provide as many
details as possible regarding the manner in which Defendant, as opposed to other police officers,
specifically procured and/or manufactured Mizzell as a witness.
III.

Conclusions

Defendant’s motion to compel complete responses (DE# 107) is granted. Plaintiff shall
provide Defendant with supplemental responses to interrogatories number 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20,
and 21 as directed above. To the extent Plaintiff does not know any or all information requested
7

Case No. 07-23381-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN
by the interrogatories, Plaintiff must indicate that fact in his supplemental responses. However,
Plaintiff is cautioned that should he represent that he does not know the information, Plaintiff
may be barred from relying on that information as evidence on summary judgment or at trial,
unless Plaintiff promptly supplements his response and mails a copy of that supplemental
information to Defendant in advance. 2
Defendant’s earlier-filed motion to compel responses to interrogatories (DE# 106) is
denied as moot because Plaintiff already responded.
Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.

Though his responses were late,

Plaintiff made some effort to respond originally. Moreover, Plaintiff is incarcerated and is
proceeding pro se, and Defendant candidly acknowledges he was unable to confer with Plaintiff
before filing the motions.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of July, 2011.

Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Alan S. Gold
Stephen L. White, pro se
All counsel of record

2

Some of Plaintiff’s responses suggest Plaintiff believes that Defendant, merely by virtue
of working for the Police Department, has ready access to all government records. Plaintiff
should be advised that this may not always be the case and therefore, unless Plaintiff can provide
a copy of a referenced document directly to Defendant (and that document also fully responds to
an interrogatory), Plaintiff must provide the requested information by way of written
interrogatory answer.
8