Hunter v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
Filing
93
ORDER denying 79 Motion to Compel, Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, and 85 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 2/5/16. (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 are Plaintiff’s motion to compel and extend the discovery deadline
and his motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 4th Order denying his motion for
sanctions, his seventh and eighth discovery-related motions in this case. (Doc. nos. 79, 85.)
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 on
Defendants CCA, Medlin, Day, Phillips, and Defendants’ responses, allegedly received on
May 11, 2015, contained only objections. (Doc. no. 42, p. 2.) Plaintiff filed a motion to
compel regarding the requests for production, arguing Defendants had wrongfully withheld
relevant documents. (Doc. no. 42.) On August 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
motion to compel in part, extended the discovery period until November 21, 2015, and
ordered Defendant Hininger to provide a response to Plaintiff’s request for production.
(Doc. no. 59.) On September 28, 2015, Defendants complied with the Order by giving
Plaintiff the opportunity to inspect approximately 2,000 responsive documents at Dooly State
Prison due to his inability to pay for copies and his lack of entitlement to have his litigation
costs subsidized. (Doc. no. 67.) Defendant also provided a response to Plaintiff’s request for
production. (Doc. no. 60.)
On October 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions and motion for subpoena
due to Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the Court’s Order on the motion to
compel. (Doc. no. 70.) In that motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendants should be sanctioned
for not producing all responsive documents and that he was prejudiced by having only three
hours to inspect the documents before he attended Friday prayers. (Id.) He also requested
the Court to subpoena the relevant documents. (Id.) In response, defense counsel stated in
an affidavit that Plaintiff inspected the documents from 10:05 a.m. until 12:48 p.m. at which
time he stated that he had enough and voluntarily stopped the inspection. (Doc. no. 72-2.)
Defense counsel also supplied the Court with similar information in a notice of compliance
and outlined the various documents provided for inspection. (Doc. no. 67.) On December 4,
2015, the Court denied the motion for subpoena and sanctions given that Plaintiff had not
shown the incompleteness of discovery. (Doc. no. 81.) The Court also denied the motion
for subpoena as a procedurally improper tool for obtaining discovery and due to Plaintiff’s
failure to make a good-faith certification. (Id.)
Plaintiff now comes before the Court disputing Defendant Hininger’s responses to the
request for production provided on August 26, 2015, the only item of discovery that, before
2
now, Plaintiff has not challenged. (Doc. no. 79.) Plaintiff also requests reconsideration of
the Court’s December 4th Order, insisting that Defendants have not produced all responsive
documents. (Doc. no. 85.) Defendants contest both of these motions. (Doc. nos. 84, 87.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) provides as follows:
Parties 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.1
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).
Plaintiff’s motion to compel only concerns nine document production responses given
by Defendant Hininger. (Doc. no. 79, p. 4.) First, it should be noted that Defendant
Hininger represented as to requests two, three, five, seven, and nine that there were no
responsive documents. (Doc. no. 60-1, pp. 20-23.) The Court is generally entitled to rely on
such representations by counsel absent some reasonable articulable suspicion that the
representation is false, which Plaintiff has not provided here.
See In re Delta/AirTran
Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 846 F. Supp. 2d 1335, 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
1
The 2015 revision to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) became applicable “insofar as just and
practicable” to all pending proceedings on December 1, 2015. Fed. R. Civ. P. Refs & Annos
(Order of April 29, 2015). The new rule “elevates the proportionality factors previously
found under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but in a different order.” Herrera-Velazquez v. Plantation
Sweets, Inc., CV 614-127, 2016 WL 183058, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2016)
3
26(g) which requires that attorneys certify the completeness of discovery responses under
penalty of sanctions). Further, 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.”). The Court will address the
remaining contested responses in full below. Of note, given the multiple typographical
errors in the requests, the Court has not given the customarily used “sic” by each error.
l. Prod uce the documents if the contractual agreement between the
Georgia Department of Corrections and Corrections Corporation of
America concerning the responsibility to its employees, inmates and
their religious rights, assigned to their charge, visitors, contractors
operates within the facility. ·
RESPONSE: The defendants are not required to provide free copies
of discovery documents to the plaintiff. A copy of the Contract
between the Georgia Department of Corrections and Corrections
Corporation of America will be made available for viewing and
inspection at you r present facility and has been mailed to the
warden's office at Dooly State Prison the same day the responses arc
served.
As to the contractual agreement between the Georgia Department of Corrections and
CCA, Defendants have represented on numerous occasions that this was provided to
Plaintiff for inspection on September 25, 2015. (Doc. no. 72, 84.) Given that Plaintiff has
brought nothing to bear to undermine this certification by defense counsel, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request. See In re Delta/AirTran Baggage
Fee Antitrust Litig., 846 F. Supp. 2d at 1349.
4. Produce the documents that contain, constru, refer to the name and
GDC number and photo id of those enrolled in the BIP Faithbase
program from April -November 2012.
4
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to plaintiffs request on the
grounds that as drawn, it seeks irrelevant information, is not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is
unduly burdensome overbroad, vague and ambiguous. In addition,
state law prohibits me from disclosing the information pursuant to
O.C.G.A.§ 42-5-36(c). Subject to the exemptions of subsection (b) & (d).
Plaintiff states that he requires the photographs, inmate numbers, and names
of those in the faith-based program during the time he was enrolled to identify who
was in the program against their will and who received a disciplinary report for not
participating in the meetings. (Doc. no. 79, p. 4.) However, the Court cannot see
how this information concerning other inmates in the program is relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims that his freedom of religious exercise was impinged upon.
O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36(c) also prohibits disclosure of this information due to its
confidentiality, and Plaintiff cannot overcome this designation with such an
expansive and ill-tailored request. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion
to compel as to this request.
6. Produce all documents contain, constru, refer to any complaint filed
against you include lawsuits.
RESPONSE: The defendant objects to plaintiff's request on the
grounds that as drawn, it seeks irrelevant information, is not
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is unduly
burdensome, overbroad, vague and ambiguous.
This request is also extremely overbroad in requesting any documentation
relating to any complaints filed against Defendant Hininger. Plaintiff makes no
attempt to limit this inquiry by subject, time period, or complainant. (See doc. no.
84, p. 4.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request
5
because it is overly broad.
8. Produce all documents contai n, constru, refer to any job duties,
responsibilities for Medlin, Day, Phillips, Faithbase Life Principles
Program.
RESPONSE: The defendants are not required to provide free copies of
discovery documents to the plaintiff. The job descriptions for the Warden,
Chaplain and Program Facilitator will be made available for viewing and
inspection. There is no job duty of which I am aware for the "Faithbased
Life Principles Program" available. The job descriptions for the Warden,
Chaplain and Program facilitator have been mailed to your present
facility for viewing and inspection the same day as these responses are served
on you.
Defense counsel represented that he has produced the job descriptions of Defendants
Medlin, Day, and Phillips on numerous occasions. (Doc. no. 67, p. 2, doc. no. 60-1, p. 22.)
Plaintiff has not undermined this representation in any meaningful way and common sense
dictates that no job description would exist for the “Faithbase Life Principles Program.”
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request.
B.
Plaintiff’s Request to Have Possession of the Documents and Request for
an Extension of Discovery.
Plaintiff requests that the responsive documents at issue in this motion to compel be
left in his possession so that he has adequate time to inspect them. As the Court has denied
his motion to compel in its entirety, this request is moot. Even if Plaintiff is requesting
possession of the other responsive documents he has requested in this case, such a request is
improper.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(B) clearly contemplates inspection and copying of
requested documents by the requesting party at a designated place and time, not wholesale
possession of those documents. Plaintiff has had the opportunity to inspect the responsive
documents and copy the most relevant items with his own funds. See Easley v. Dep't of
6
Corr., 590 F. App'x 860, 868 (11th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff chose to voluntarily stop the prior
inspection and chose not to make any copies. (Doc. no. 72-2, p. 3.) Thus, the Court also
DENIES this request.
Plaintiff also requests a ninety-day extension of discovery so that he can review the
documents in dispute. Because the Court has denied the motion to compel in its entirety, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an extension of discovery.
C.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration also makes the same general allegations against
Defendants that they have not produced all of the responsive documents he has requested.
(Doc. no. 85, p. 4.)
In supporting this assertion, Plaintiff simply repeats some of his
discovery requests and alleges Defendants have failed to produce the documents regardless
of counsel’s representations that no responsive documents exist or that he has produced all
responsive documents that do exist.
(Id. at 4-5.)
Plaintiff also seems to argue that
Defendants have not produced the documents because counsel did not label each category of
documents to specify the document requests to which they were responsive. However,
Defendants’ supplemental responses to the requests for production clearly identify what has
been produced in response to each individual request. (See doc. no. 60.)
In sum, Plaintiff’s boilerplate allegations do not merit reconsideration of the Court’s
prior Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and for subpoena. Defendants have
produced a multitude of documents that are responsive to each request, and Plaintiff has
offered no evidence to question the completeness of this production.
7
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel, motion for
an extension of discovery, and motion for reconsideration. (Doc. nos. 79, 85.)
SO ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2016, at Augusta, Georgia.
8
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?