Brown v. Dobler et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Judge Candy W. Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MICHAEL BROWN,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00132-CWD
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
SGT. DOBLER; CORIZON MEDICAL;
SGT. SEGADELLI; IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRETION;
CPL STELZER; WARDEN BLADES;
GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR
HALLUM; and DEPUTY WARDEN
KENNETH BENNETT,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Michael Brown, a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Correction (IDOC), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (Dkt. 57.) Plaintiff
notified Defendants of his intent to file his motion to compel prior to filing his motion,
and did not receive a response from Defendants. Plaintiff then filed his motion on
November 20, 2015, and Defendants failed to respond.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds the facts and legal arguments are
adequately presented in the briefs and record. Accordingly, because the Court
conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral
argument, this matter this Court will decide the motion on the record without oral
argument. D. Idaho L. R. 7.1. The Court concludes that the vast majority of the discovery
sought by Plaintiff in the Motion to Compel is relevant and will order Defendants to
respond to that discovery within 30 days of the date of this Order.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction
(IDOC), currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Center (ISCC). Plaintiff
claims that, in August of 2014, he was threatened by other ISCC inmates. Plaintiff
informed Defendant Sergeant Dobler of these threats, but Dobler replied, “You are
paranoid and making it up . . . stop wasting my time.” (Compl., Dkt. 3-1, ¶¶ 157-61.)
Several days later, Plaintiff was attacked and knocked unconscious by another inmate.
After the attack, Plaintiff was examined by an unidentified nurse, who took
Plaintiff’s vital signs and gave Plaintiff ibuprofen for pain. Plaintiff asked the nurse to
order an x-ray, but the nurse stated, “You don’t need an x-ray, there is nothing we can do
to help your face. I can tell that there is nothing broke in your face that you will be okay.”
(Id. ¶ 164 (verbatim).) However, Plaintiff later did receive an x-ray. (Id. ¶ 168.)
Plaintiff received a Disciplinary Offense Report (“DOR”) for the incident, even
though he did not fight back against the inmate who attacked him. This DOR was later
dismissed. (Id. ¶¶ 166, 168.)
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Approximately two weeks after the incident, a non-defendant correctional officer
tried to move Plaintiff back to the same tier on which he was assaulted. Plaintiff refused,
because he was afraid, and he then received another DOR for disobeying orders. (Id. ¶
169.) Plaintiff was later found guilty of this DOR, but he did not appeal because he was
scared of retaliation. In September of 2014, Defendant Dobler placed Plaintiff back on
that same tier. (Id. ¶¶ 173-74.) Two days later, Plaintiff was moved to a different tier, but
was again threatened. Plaintiff was then placed in isolation due to the danger he faced in
general population. After a brief stint in another prison, Plaintiff was placed in an ISCC
“close custody” unit known as Unit E1. Plaintiff claims that this unit was double-celled,
notwithstanding a previous court order requiring single-celling. Plaintiff alleges that
ISCC staff members “started retaliating against Plaintiff.” (Id. ¶ 181.)
Plaintiff was considering filing a civil lawsuit, potentially with the aid of the
ACLU, against prison officials and prison medical staff. Plaintiff claims that he learned
from Defendants Corporal Stelzer and Sergeant Segadelli that IDOC and ISCC
administrators had instructed Stelzer and Segadelli to “retaliate” against Plaintiff for
considering such a lawsuit. (Id. ¶ 185.) In February of 2015, unidentified administrators
allegedly locked down half of Plaintiff’s close custody unit and commanded the inmates
“not to speak to each other regarding grievances, tort claims, or [the] A.C.L.U. lawsuit.”
(Id. ¶ 186.)
The next day, Defendant Segadelli held a unit meeting with the inmates and stated:
“So you want to complain? Well I gave you life and I can take it away, Admin gave me
permission to send any of you, anywhere I decide to.” Defendant Stelzer, who was at the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

meeting also, said that he “would pull the . . . protective custody status[] of any E1
inmate that ‘complains’ again.” (Id. ¶ 187.) Stelzer continued, “I will put you [Plaintiff]
back out where you got smashed out and you’ll get smashed out again, then I’ll Ad-seg
you for the rest of your incarceration.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that these threats caused
other inmates, who were considering joining with Plaintiff in pursuing civil rights
litigation, to decide not to do so.
Plaintiff claims also that Defendant Grievance Coordinator Hallum stole a
grievance that Plaintiff filed in September 2014. Plaintiff claims that Hallum tried to
cover up this “obvious theft and destruction” of the grievance by “falsely claim[ing]
negligence.” (Id. ¶ 190.) With respect to another grievance filed by Plaintiff, Defendant
Segadelli allegedly “lied to cover up the truth of relevant events” when responding to the
grievance, and Defendant Deputy Warden Kenneth Bennett allegedly lied also when he
acted as the Level 2 responder on the grievance. (Id. ¶¶ 192-93.)
Plaintiff named, as defendants in this case, Sergeant Dobler, Sergeant Segadelli,
Grievance Coordinator Hallum, Deputy Warden Bennett, and Warden Blades, as well as
Corizon, the private entity providing medical treatment to Idaho state inmates under
contract with the IDOC. The Court’s initial review order limited Plaintiff to proceeding
against Defendants Segadelli and Stelzer on his claims for retaliation for engaging in
protected activity, and against Defendant Dobler on his claim under the Eighth
Amendment for failure to protect from harm. Additionally, the Court permitted Plaintiff
to proceed against Warden Blades for injunctive relief on the failure to protect claim,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

because Warden Blades appears to have direct responsibility over the area in which
Plaintiff seeks relief.
DISCUSSION
1.

Discovery Standards 1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) allows parties to 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of
discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that … the
proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the
action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. However, district courts are given broad discretion to apply
discovery rules to properly effect the policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
1

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the rules regarding discovery, were amended effective
December 1, 2015. Although Plaintiff filed his motion prior to the effective date of the amendments, the Court cites
the rules in effect as of December 1, 2015, as the amended rules now govern this matter.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

namely, the rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the
parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. (Emphasis added).
If an answering party fails to adequately respond to discovery requests or fails to
make a disclosure required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a), the propounding party can move for
an order compelling discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Generally, a court should
deny a motion to compel only if the information requested falls outside the scope of
discovery. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 43839 (9th Cir. 1992); cert. denied, 508 U.S. 908 (1993). In other words, a motion to compel
“should be granted if the questions are relevant and proper….” Charles A. Wright, Arthur
R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2286 (1994).
2.

Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff first asserts that Defendants served their initial disclosures late, and that

Defendants failed to adequately compile their initial disclosures. Plaintiff contends initial
disclosures were due on or before October 9, 2015, but he did not receive Defendants’
initial disclosures until November 16, 2015, and they served Plaintiff with only Plaintiff’s
own DOR’s. Plaintiff contends Defendants are in contempt of court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) governs initial disclosures required by the parties without
awaiting a discovery request. The Court on September 9, 2015, ordered the parties to
produce initial disclosures within thirty days---October 9, 2015. Here, although late,
Defendants tardily made their disclosures. The Court therefore cannot grant Plaintiff’s

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

motion to compel, as Rule 37(a)(3)(A) provides only that the Court may order compelling
an answer if a party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a).
The Court does not, however, condone Defendants’ failure to abide by this Court’s
order, and future failures in that regard may subject Defendants to sanctions, especially if
Defendants’ tardiness results in prejudice to Plaintiff which prevents him from pursuing
the claims the Court has allowed to proceed. In addition, the Court reminds Defendants
that they are under an obligation to supplement their disclosures as required by Rule
26(a).
3.

Discovery Requests
Plaintiff propounded two sets of discovery---Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories

and Requests for Production, and a Second set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production. Upon review, Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests are
inadequate.
For the most part, it appears Defendants utterly failed to answer any question, and
instead simply cut and pasted the same or a similar objection in response to each request.
Most answers consist of the following response, or some permutation of it:
Defendants objects [sic] to the request as phrased, as the same seeks
matters that are subject to attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
privilege, and the privileges afforded under Rule 26(b)(3). Defendants
further object to this Request as it is overbroad, irrelevant, and seeks to
obtain information that is sensitive and confidential in order to promote the
secure and orderly operation of a prison and protect IDPC staff members
and prisoners. Defendants further object to this Request because a prisoner
has no right to inspect or review records pertaining to himself or other
prisoners maintained by the IDOC. 2
2

This objection was stated in various forms in response to every one of Plaintiff’s requests for production.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

Despite objecting on the grounds of privilege, Defendants shirked their obligation under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), as the Court has not been made aware of any privilege log
produced to Plaintiff that identifies the documents withheld.
The Court declines to engage in deciphering each objection to the interrogatories
and requests for production. However, the Court will attempt to provide Defendants with
some guidance. Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, for example, ask where the Defendants have
been employed as a unit sergeant, and what units they were responsible for. Defendants
objected because Plaintiff did not identify which Defendant the interrogatory was
directed toward, and because Plaintiff asked for “confidential information.” First,
Defendants can assume Plaintiff requested the information as to each Defendant.
Defendants should then construe the discovery requests within the broad scope of
discovery, and in the context of the specific claims at issue, and then respond to the
discovery request to the extent Defendants are able to without disclosing confidential
information. If confidential information is potentially relevant, Defendants are obligated
by the Rules of Civil Procedure to compile a privilege log.
The Court concludes that the majority of Plaintiff’s requests are relevant to his
claims and are therefore discoverable. For example, Plaintiff seeks information as to
which units the Defendants supervised during the time periods mentioned in the
Complaint (August of 2014 and February of 2015); whether Defendants were on Unit E1
at ISCC during the February 11, 2015 lockdown; how many sex offenders have been
involved in physical altercations; and documents, files, logs, and records relating to the
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

August 22, 2014 assault. 3 Given that Plaintiff was subject to an assault while Defendants
were on duty, and that Defendants were allegedly responsible for a later lockdown due to
prisoner complaints, Plaintiffs’ requests for information and records relating to the
incidents are relevant, as is information that the administrators were aware of inmate on
inmate attacks perpetrated against sex offenders.
Put simply, Defendants have not adequately justified their failure to answer the
discovery requests at issue. If the information sought is subject to one or more claims of
privilege, a privilege log must be compiled and produced. If the information is relevant,
and not privileged but confidential, Defendants may submit a protective order to the
Court for consideration. And finally, the Court is more than willing to entertain an in
camera review of the documents and records Defendants have refused to produce, but
which appear to exist based upon their objections. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel will be granted in part.
4.

Limitations on Discovery
The Court does note that some of Plaintiff’s requests are overly broad, and it will

not require Defendants to answer interrogatories or to produce documents seeking clearly
irrelevant information or information outside a reasonable period of time. For example,
Plaintiff seeks “all documents, files, logs, records, incident reports and information …in
Plaintiff Brown’s entire mental health record, mental health file both on prison

3

Defendants objected to producing the documents, files, logs, records, video recordings, incident reports and
communications relating to the August 22, 2014 assault as “privileged,” but again, failed to provide a privilege log.
The Court finds those records would be particularly relevant. If Defendants require a protective order, they have
failed to present one to the Court, nor have they indicated that a privilege log was produced to Plaintiff. Defendants’
objections are not well taken.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

compounds and off prison compounds from July 23, 2009 until September 10, 2015. This
is properly limited as to any mental health treatment Plaintiff might have received as a
result of the incidents in August of 2014, and February of 2015, which are the subject of
Plaintiff’s complaint.
As another example, Plaintiff frequently asks Defendants whether they have been
investigated for misconduct, and Plaintiff seeks production of Defendants’ personnel
files. These requests are much too broad, and responses thereto may be limited to
situations regarding Plaintiff’s specific claims. For example, if a Defendant had been
investigated for his or her conduct in relation to another inmate’s complaint about a
failure to protect or retaliation claim within one year before Plaintiff’s incident, then that
investigation might well be relevant. However, any disciplinary actions or investigations
against any of the Defendants that do not relate to any of Plaintiff’s current claims are not
relevant and are subject to an appropriate objection on that basis.
CONCLUSION
The examples given by the Court above regarding appropriate limitations on
Plaintiff’s discovery requests are just that---examples. Defendants must use their
judgment in determining whether a particular request falls within the Court’s limitations
or must be answered in its entirety, but that judgment should be exercised carefully and
thoughtfully.
Defendants may properly limit their responses in accordance with this Order.
Objections based on anything other than privilege or scope of the request (as to time or
relevance to Plaintiff’s specific claims) must be accompanied by an actual response.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

Defendants are advised to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b), effective December 1, 2015,
which requires the objecting party to state whether responsive materials are being
withheld on the basis of the objection, and permit inspection of any other documents not
subject to an objection.
Thus, Defendants may preserve their objections without further delaying this case.
Defendants may respond to an overly broad request with information or documents that
are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and limited to one year before Plaintiff’s claims arose,
and Defendants may object to the extent the request seeks information not allowed by this
Order.
The parties are reminded that discovery abuses may result in sanctions, up to and
including dismissal or default judgment.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 48) is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth in this Order. Defendants
must respond to all of the discovery attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel within 30 days after entry of this Order.

2.

Any response to an interrogatory or request for production of documents
may be limited to events occurring within one year prior to the incident
giving rise to Plaintiff’s retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims.

3.

Any response to an interrogatory or request for production of documents
that is open-ended as to its scope, such as an interrogatory requesting
information on previous misconduct complaints or investigations, may be
limited to events relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this case.

4.

Any interrogatory or request for production of documents that does not
identify a specific defendant must be answered as to each named Defendant
(Segadelli, Stelzer, and Dobler).

5.

Defendants may limit their responses as allowed by this Order by including
objections to requests outside the scope of the claims at issue in this case or
outside the one-year period. Defendants may preserve objections other than
those based on privilege or specific relevance as to claims or time period,
but the requested information must be disclosed along with the objection.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

6.

If any information is deemed privileged, Defendants must produce a
privilege log as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).
December 29, 2015

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13