Hunter v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting 46 Motion to determine the sufficiency of the answers. The defendants amended responses are due within 21 days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/30/15. (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.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________

CV 314-035

ORDER
___________
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to determine the sufficiency of the answers to
requests for admissions served upon Defendants. (Doc. no. 46.) Defendants argue that
Plaintiff has not made a good faith attempt to resolve the current discovery dispute before
filing his motion in court and that their responses were sufficient when made. (Doc. no. 68.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff only sent one letter upon receiving the responses to the
requests for admission, which merely stated that if he did not receive proper responses to the
requests then he would file a motion. (See doc. no. 68, p. 2, doc. no. 42, p. 17.)
Discovery motions must contain a certification “that a good faith effort has been
made to resolve the dispute before coming to the court.” Loc. R. 26.5. However, such a
certification does not necessarily demonstrate, standing on its own, that an actual good faith
effort has been made to resolve the dispute. See Jackson v. Deen, CV 412-139, 2012 WL
7198434, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2012) (finding that a good faith effort had not been made

where the attorneys did not verbally confer about the motion).

Furthermore, a simple

exchange of papers or superficial conference on the discovery issues will not suffice to meet
the requirement contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c). See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Howard, 296 F.R.D. 692, 697 (S.D. Ga. 2013) (finding that a superficial conversation about
the discovery issues did not suffice.)
To this end, Plaintiff’s single letter discussing the responses to his requests, which
simply calls them insufficient without further detail and then threatens to file a motion, is
wholly insufficient to meet the good faith requirement contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).
Although the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is incarcerated and is limited in his ability to
confer with defense counsel, Plaintiff must utilize more than a single letter devoid of any
detail or argument before he can certify to the Court that he has meet and conferred about the
dispute in good faith. Indeed, a simple comparison between his efforts with defense counsel
and the effort he put into his discovery motion show a large disparity. Had Plaintiff put the
same effort into resolving this dispute with defense counsel as arguing it to the Court, the
Court’s intervention may have been unnecessary.
Nevertheless, the Court cannot ignore the deficiency of Defendants’ responses to
Plaintiff’s requests for admissions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) provides:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in
detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial
must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith
requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the
answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The
answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for
failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable
inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient
to enable it to admit or deny.

2

The responses here fail to meet those requirements, and fail to follow many of the remaining
instructions in Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. For example, in request for admission 1(d) to Defendant
Hininger, the following exchange occurs:
RFA: “You fail to properly supervise your subordinates, Medlin, Day,
Phillips, by allowing them to violate my First Amendment rights to free
exercise of religion to the establishment clause, 14th amend Equal
Protection of Religion forcing plaintiff to participate in Christianity
through mandatory group sessions or be punished with a disciplinary
report. [sic]”
RESPONSE: “The request assumes facts that are not correct.
Notwithstanding, my position does not involve day to day direct
supervision of staff at this level. Therefore, your request is denied as
drawn.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 requires that a response specify which part of the request it is admitting
and denying, and that a denial fairly respond to the substance of a matter. Here, the response
is entirely unclear as to which facts are incorrect in the request. In addition, the general
denial in the last sentence is qualified by the phrase “as drawn” and seems to build on the
preceding two sentences. Although Defendants supplemented their answers in their response
to Plaintiff’s motion, this is not a proper substitute for actually serving sufficient responses.
The supplemental responses also fail to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to determine the sufficiency of
the answers (doc no. 46), and will require Defendants to serve amended responses to the
requests that fully comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 within twenty-one days of the date of this

3

Order. Defendants shall also file the amended responses with the Court, in deviation from
L.R. 26.4.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of October, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia

4