Hunter v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
Filing
59
ORDER granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting in part 42 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 43 Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 50 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 56 Motion for Leave to File; the Court orders defendants to submit a response to 46 by Monday 8/31/15. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 8/26/15. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
CURTIS HUNTER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
)
AMERICA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________
CV 314-035
ORDER
_________
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Dooly State Prison in Unadilla, Georgia, commenced
the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, concerning events alleged to have
occurred at Wheeler Correctional Facility in Alamo, Georgia. Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (doc. no. 41), motion to
compel (doc. no. 42), and motion for a second request for admissions (doc. no. 43).
Defendants have also filed an extension of time to file civil motions and a motion to file their
summary judgment motion out of time. (Doc. nos. 50, 56.) For the reasons set forth below,
the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc no. 42), DENIES AS
MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for a second request for admissions (doc. no. 43), GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of discovery (doc. no. 41), and DENIES AS MOOT
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to file civil motions and motion to file their
summary judgment motion out of time, (doc. nos. 50, 56.), and DENIES Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment without prejudice and with the right to refile following the close of
discovery (doc no. 55).
I. BACKGROUND
The amended complaint alleges Defendants violated the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”)
by forcing Plaintiff to participate in a Christian faith-based program despite his Muslim
beliefs. (See doc. no. 11.) On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff served requests for production, and
Defendants’ responses, allegedly received on May 11, 2015, contained only objections.
(Doc. no. 42, p. 2.) Plaintiff contends Defendants waived their objections by not timely
responding and that all documents requested are relevant. (Id.) Plaintiff also requests leave
to serve a second request for admissions and a ninety-day extension of discovery so that he
can prepare for summary judgment after receipt of any supplemental document production.
(Doc. nos. 41, 43.) On July 13, 2015, Defendants requested an extension of the deadline for
summary judgment motions but subsequently moved for summary judgment, and leave to
file the motion out of time, on July 23, 2015. (Doc. nos. 50, 55, 56.)
II. DISCUSSION
A.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .
2
Relevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly
favor full discovery whenever possible, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185,
1189 (11th Cir. 2013), and “[w]hen there is a doubt over relevancy, the court should still
permit discovery,” Coker v. Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
1.
Threshold Issues
Before delving into a discussion regarding relevance of the disputed document requests,
the Court will address four threshold issues. First, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that
Plaintiff’s motion to compel does not comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff provided each
disputed request for production, explained his arguments as to the relevance of each, and
certified that he attempted in good faith to negotiate a resolution with defense counsel before
moving to compel. (Doc. no. 42, pp. 6-19.)
Second, because Defendants show by affidavit that they never received the request for
production (“RFP”) to Defendant Hininger, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel
production from Defendant Hininger. Now that defense counsel has received this request as an
attachment to the motion to compel, however, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendant Hinninger
to serve a response within thirty days from the date of this Order. Third, the Court finds that all
remaining defendants served timely RFP responses on April 23, 2015 and thus did not waive
their objections. (Doc. no. 44, pp. 1, 6-34.)
3
Fourth, there is no need to engage in a lengthy discussion of many discovery requests that
are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion to compel because Defendants represented unequivocally as
to each that there are no responsive documents. (See id., pp. 6-20.) This representation is made
in relation to (1) numbers four, five, six, seven, and eight in CCA’S RFP; (2) numbers one, two,
four, and five in Day’s RFP; and (3) numbers one, two, six, and seven in Medlin’s RFP. The
Court obviously cannot compel production of documents that do not exist. Mathis v. Wachovia,
505-CV-163, 2006 WL 3747300, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2006) (“Clearly, if documents do not
exist or are not in Defendant's possession or control, the court cannot compel Defendant to
produce the documents.”). In addition, this Court is generally entitled to rely on representations
made in discovery requests and responses. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d
1353, 1372 (11th Cir. 1997); id. Because there is no basis for a finding that the representations
by defense counsel are false, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to these
requests.
2.
Defining the Scope of Relevant Discovery
Plaintiff, a Muslim, alleges Defendants violated RLUIPA by forcing him to participate in
a faith-based program at WCF that only taught Christianity and deceiving him into believing he
would be able to teach Islam. (See doc. no. 11, pp. 4-7.) RLUIPA prohibits the imposition of a
substantial burden on the religious exercise of prisoners unless the substantial burden can survive
strict scrutiny. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. “To establish a prima facie case under section 3 of
RLUIPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he engaged in a religious exercise; and (2) that the
4
religious exercise was substantially burdened.” Benning v. Georgia, 845 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1376
(M.D. Ga. 2012).
Plaintiff’s claims, broadly construed, also allege violations of the Establishment Clause,
which “at least” prohibits any government from passing laws that “aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Everson v. Bd. of Ed. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1,
15 (1947). To pass muster under the Establishment Clause, a practice must (1) have a valid
secular purpose; (2) not have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion; and (3) not foster
excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612
(1971),
With this basic framework of Plaintiff’s claims in mind, the permissible scope of
discovery appears to include, without limitation, information concerning Plaintiff’s recruitment
and participation in the faith-based program, the types of religions and beliefs included in the
faith-based program during Plaintiff’s participation, the curriculum of the program, the types of
materials used in connection with the program, policies and practices applicable to the program,
voluntariness of the program, and whether inmates were allowed to practice religions other than
Christianity while in the program. The Court now turns to a discussion of all documents requests
in dispute. Notably, the Court has typed Plaintiff’s document requests verbatim without noting
every error with the traditional reference to the Latin word “sic.”
5
3.
Disputed Document Requests to Defendant CCA.
Defendant CCA is alleged to be a private corporation that owns and operates Wheeler
Correctional Facility pursuant to a contract with the Georgia Department of Corrections.
(See doc. no. 11, pp. 7-8.) Plaintiff alleges CCA adopted improper standards and policies for
operation of the faith-based program. Remaining in dispute for Defendant CCA are three
document requests, the first of which provides as follows:
1. Produce all documents contain, constru, refer to the number of
CCA's across the United States "Name and Sate Facility operates in"
that operate a BIP faith based program or any other religious
program that receive Federal Financial Assistance.
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to the request because it calls
for information irrelevant to the plaintiff's lawsuit and which is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Otherwise, the request is overbroad.
This request asks for documents concerning faith-based programs at any other prison
in the nation operated by CCA. (See doc. no. 44, p. 6.) Because faith-based programs not
involved in this lawsuit are irrelevant and have no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to RFP number one.
2. Produce all grievance filed by plaintiff while in bldg. 600 AC in
April of 2012 at WCF.
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to the request because it
calls for information irrelevant to the plaintiff's lawsuit and
which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Otherwise, the request is overbroad.
6
Because this request narrowly seeks production of grievances filed by Plaintiff during
the month of April 2012 when he was participating in the faith-based program, the Court
ORDERS CCA to produce all responsive documents.
3. Produce plaintiff s OMS schedule while housed in bldg 600 AC in
April 2012 at WCF.
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to the request because it calls
for information irrelevant to the plaintiff’s lawsuit and which is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
This request is relevant because it is narrowly tailored to documents concerning
Plaintiff’s schedule in April 2012, during his participation in the faith-based program. The
Court thus ORDERS CCA to produce all responsive documents.
9. Produce the documents of the Georgia Department of Corrections
authorizing CCNWCF to uses as a punitive measure the punish
an inmate with a disciplinary report for non-participating in
Christianity through mandatory group sessions in the BIP Faith based
program.
RESPONSE: The Georgia Department of Corrections is not a
defendant in this action. This defendant objects to providing
documents from nonparties. The plaintiff may obtain those by
other means from the nonparty.
This request asks for documents concerning any authorization from the Georgia
Department of Corrections for CCA to punish inmates who refuse to participate in the faithbased program because of its alleged Christian emphasis. (Id. at 8.) Defendant CCA does
not clearly say in its response that it does not possess any responsive documents. Instead, it
states, in essence, that Plaintiff should ask the Georgia Department of Corrections for them.
7
The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant CCA to amend its response and clarify whether any
such documents are in its possession or control, and, if so, to confirm that it will produce
them.
10. Produce the documents that contain, construe, refer to you
instruction WCF Medlin, Day, Phillips of what specific religions to
teach in the BIP Faith based program.
RESPONSE: The request is not clear or understandable and is
objected to on that ground. The program does not teach religions.
Although this request may not be a model of clarity, it is clear enough to warrant
production of any and all documents, regardless of the author, that discuss, concern, or relate to
the issue of what religions should be or are incorporated into any aspect of the 2012 faith-based
program. If there are no responsive documents, Defendant should clearly state as much in its
response. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request.
4.
Disputed Document Requests to Defendant Ron Day
Defendant Ron Day is alleged to be the chaplain and overseer of the faith-based
program at Wheeler Correctional Facility. (Doc. no. 11, p. 9.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant
Day forced him to participate in Christianity through mandatory group sessions and failed to
implement other religions in the program. (Id.) As to Defendant Ron Day, the three
remaining document requests and responses in dispute are as follows:
3. Produce all documents contain, constru, refer to the Chaplain
budget in 2012.
8
RESPONSE: The request is objected to because it calls for irrelevant
information and information not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
6. Produce all documents contain, constru, refer to how you supervised
Phillips and the BIP Faith base program that set forth in your job duties,
responsibilities, directives, policies.
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to providing free copies of discovery
documents. However, the job description for my position as chaplain is as
follows: Plans, conducts or facilitates workshops, and group activities
specific to programs by facilitating group discussions, lecturing,
demonstrating, and using audio and/or visual aids and other material to
supplement program curriculum. Follows standard curriculum for the
program and supervises all program activity. Creates and maintains an
environment that is conducive to learning and personal growth of
inmates/residents by establishing standards of behavior and participation,
and encourages inmates/residents to maintain these standards.
Coordinates admissions, evaluations, program completion, and program
termination information with other interested staff and departments.
Maintains and monitors confidentiality of inmates/residents and
administrative flies. Evaluates progress of assigned inmates/residents and
reviews status to verify that programs are completed. Utilizes established
company, facility, and correctional policies and procedures in making
decisions.
7. Produce all documents, contain, refer to any complaints, grievances
lawsuits filed against you.
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to plaintiff's request on the grounds
that as drawn, because it is overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, that
not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is unduly
burdensome, vague and ambiguous.
Because RFP numbers three and six are reasonable and relevant, the Court
COMPELS Defendant Day to produce the budget for the 2012 faith-based program,
documents concerning his supervision of the faith-based program in 2012, all documents
9
concerning his job duties and responsibilities with respect to the 2012 faith-based program,
and all documents that concern directives and policies applicable to the 2012 faith-based
program. It is insufficient for Defendant Day to type a summary of his job description into
his response to the document request.
RFP number seven is overly broad in its request for all grievances filed against
Defendant Day concerning any subject. Falling within the scope of relevance, however, are
grievances filed against Defendant Day that concern the 2012 faith-based program, any
allegation of him coercing or requiring inmates to participate in Christian activities or events,
or any allegation that he prohibited or discouraged inmate participation in religious activities
or events related to religions other than Christianity. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS
IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Defendant Day’s RFP numbers three, six, and
seven.
5.
Disputed Document Requests to Warden Medlin
Defendant Jason Medlin is alleged to have been the warden at Wheeler Correctional
Facility during the relevant time frame. (Doc. no. 11, p. 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Medlin was in charge of the faith-based program and failed to purchase non-Christian
religious materials for the program. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Medlin
failed to adequately supervise his subordinates, Defendants Day and Phillips, in their
operation of the program which forced inmates to practice Christianity. (Id.)
10
Remaining in dispute with respect to Defendant Medlin are RFP numbers three, four,
and five, as follows:
3. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to how you
supervised your subordinates Day, Phillips.
RESPONSE: The request is objected to as overbroad, and calls
for information not relevant to this lawsuit.
4. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to your job
responsibilities duties set forth in any directives, policies, stipulations,
RLUIPA 42UCSC 200 CC-1.
RESPONSE: The interrogatory cannot be answered as drawn because it
is ambiguous and unclear. Otherwise, it calls for information not relevant
to this lawsuit.
5. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to the religious
material you purchased for the BIP faith based program at WCF before
2012 and after 2012.
RESPONSE: I did not purchase religious materials as described.
RFP numbers three and four are relevant only to the extent they seek production of
documents that concern the 2012 faith-based program. As to RFP number three, this means
documents concerning Defendant Medlin’s supervision of Defendants Day and Phillips in their
involvement with the 2012 faith-based program. Likewise, for RFP number four, the relevant
documents are only those that concern Defendant Medlin’s job responsibilities with respect to
the 2012 faith-based program.
Defendant Medlin’s response to RFP number five suggests that he has construed this
request too narrowly. Plaintiff seeks production of all religious materials used in connection
11
with the faith-based program since its inception to the present, as well as all documents
concerning the purchase of such material. The request is relevant, but only to the extent it seeks
materials used in the 2012 faith-based program, documents concerning the purchase of such
materials, and documents that list materials used in the 2012 program.
The Court thus
GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Medlin’s RFP numbers three, four,
and five.
6.
Disputed Document Requests to Defendant Phillips
Defendant Jay Phillips is alleged to have been the overseer of the faith-based program at
Wheeler Correctional Facility. (Doc. no. 11, pp. 9-10.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Phillips
failed to include other religions in the program and coerced inmates to attend group sessions
through writing disciplinary reports for abstention.
(Id. at 10.)
Plaintiff further alleges
Defendant Phillips falsely stated that Plaintiff had completed the faith-based program after seven
months despite the program supposedly being nine months long. (Id.) In their response brief,
Defendants failed to attach Defendant Phillips’ responses the all nine RFPs of Plaintiff, and
the Court is unsure of the bases for objections. (See doc. no. 44.) The Court will nonetheless
address the relevance of the documents requested and whether they are subject to production.
1. Produce all documents contain, refer, to the BIP faith-based
curriculum before 2012, April-November 2012, and after 2012.
2. Produce all documents construe, refer to the religious materials
purchased for the BIP faith-based program before 2012 and from April
through November 2012.
12
RFP number one seeks documents that concern or discuss the curriculum for the
faith-based program. The request is reasonable except it shall be limited in time to 2011,
2012, and 2013. RFP number two is relevant, but only to the extent it seek documents
concerning the purchase of materials used on connection with the 2012 faith-based program.
The Court thus GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Phillips’ RFP
numbers one and two.
3. Produce the document move slip for Plaintiff from 9NT2210 to 10CM18T
November 2012.
The move-slip concerning Plaintiff’s discharge from the faith-based facility in
November of 2012 is relevant because Plaintiff contends he was never allowed to complete
the faith-based program and moved out of the dorm early. Thus, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Phillips’ RFP number three.
4. Produce all disciplinary reports you written as facilitator of the BIP faithbased program towards those inmates enrolled in the program for failing to
report to mandatory group sessions, or disciplinary reports for any other
reason.
RPF number four is relevant in light of Plaintiff’s claim that prison officials require
non-Christians to attend Christian group sessions, and are punished for failing to participate
in Christian activities or services. The request is overly broad, however, to the extent it seeks
documents concerning the discipline of prisoners who failed or refused to participate for any
reason other than an objection that they did not adhere to the Christian faith. Thus, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this aspect of Phillips’ RFP number four.
13
5. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to the Georgia
Department of Corrections authorizing as means of punitive measure
for CCA/WCF to punish an inmate for not participating in Christianity
through mandatory group sessions in the BIP faith-based program.
6. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to any changes you
made in the policy of the BIP faith-based program penalizing nonparticipants with a disciplinary report.
Both of these requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of non-Christians being
punished for not participating in Christian services and activities.
These requests are
reasonable in scope even though they are not limited to participants in the 2012 program.
Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Phillips’ RFP numbers five and
six.
7. If CCA/WCF is receiving federal financial assistance for the BIP faithbased program, they are obligated to teach a diversity of religions in the
program. If any of these duties are set forth in any job description, policy,
directives, stipulations under 42 U.S.C. § 2000 CC1-CC5 spending clause
or any other clause, produced all those documents.
As to number seven, Defendants have already represented that there are no documents
responsive to such a request in another RFP. (See doc. no. 44, p. 7.) Thus, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Phillips’ RFP number seven.
8. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to any donated
religious materials for the BIP faith-based program at WCF
Similar to the first two requests in Phillips’ RFP, this request is relevant to the extent it
seeks documents reflecting or consisting of any donated religious materials used in connection
14
with the 2012 program. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Phillips’
RFP number eight.
9. Produce all documents contain, construe, refer to any complaint,
grievance, lawsuits, filed against you.
This request is relevant only to the extent it seeks complaints, grievances, and
lawsuits filed against Defendant Philips that concern his involvement in the faith-based
program. Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this RFP.
B.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Second Request for Admissions
Plaintiff filed a motion for a second request for admissions on the last day of discovery,
June 17, 2015. (Doc. no. 43.) Leave of court is not required for Plaintiff to serve discovery
requests during the discovery period, even if service occurs on the last day of the discovery
period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. In addition, the Court is extending discovery for ninety days as
stated below. Thus, the Court DENIS AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion.
C.
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Discovery
Because the Court has granted a significant portion of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, an
extra ninety days for discovery is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
motion for an extension of discovery, (doc no. 41.), and the discovery period shall end on
November 21, 2015 with the deadline for filing civil motions being December 21, 2015.
D.
Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motion
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motions for an extension of time to file
their summary judgment motion. (Doc. nos. 50, 56.) In light of the production that the Court
15
has ordered along with the extended discovery period, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment without prejudice and with the right to refile following the close of
discovery. (Doc. no. 55.) Notably, the current motion for summary judgment does not address
Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim.
E.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of the Answers
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to determine the sufficiency of the answers to multiple
requests for admissions served upon Defendants. (Doc. no. 46.) Defendants have failed to
respond to the motion, and the Court is hesitant to rule on the motion without a copy of the
original responses given by Defendants to the requests. (Id. at 6-10.) Thus, the Court ORDERS
Defendants to submit a response brief to the motion, along with copies of the responses to the
requests for admissions by Monday, August 31, 2015.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to
compel (doc no. 42). Subject to the many modifications to Plaintiff’s documents requests
described above, Defendants shall produce documents responsive to (1) numbers two, three,
nine, and ten in CCA’s RFP;(2) numbers three, six, and seven in Day’s RFP; (3) numbers
three, four, and five in Medlin’s RFP; (3) and numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, eight,
and nine in Phillips’ RFP. The Court ORDERS Defendants to furnish the responsive
documents for Plaintiff’s inspection within fourteen days of this Order, but Plaintiff will only
be allowed to make copies with his own funds. In addition, the Court DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s motion for a second request for admissions (doc. no. 43), GRANTS Plaintiff’s
16
motion for an extension of discovery (doc. no. 41), and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’
motion for an extension of time to file civil motions and motion to file their summary judgment
motion out of time (doc. nos. 50, 56), and DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
without prejudice and with the right to refile following the close of discovery (doc no. 55).
Finally, the Court ORDERS Defendant to submit a response brief to Plaintiff’s motion to
determine the sufficiency of the answers (doc no. 46), along with copies of the responses to the
requests for admissions by Monday, August 31, 2015.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.
17
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?