McCoy v. Edmeister et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING 63 MOTION for Leave to Move the Honorable Court to Clarify Defendant's Position filed by Christopher H McCoy; DENYING 73 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Christopher H McCoy; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 77 MOTION for Leave For an Expansion of Interrogatory Limit filed by Christopher H McCoy; DENYING 80 MOTION for Leave to Place Action in Abeyance filed by Christopher H McCoy; DENYING 84 MOTION to Compel filed by Christopher H McCoy; FINDING AS MOOT IN PART AND DEN YING IN PART 85 MOTION to Stay Discovery, and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Interrogatories (Doc. 77 ) filed by Jeffrey S Walton, Eric T Edmeister; DENYING 87 MOTION filed by Christopher H McCoy; GRANTING 88 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Christopher H McCoy; and DENYING 89 MOTION to Compel filed by Christopher H McCoy. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/29/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER H. MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC T. EDMEISTER and JEFFREY S.
WALTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-1379-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the following motions filed by the parties to this action:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Move the Honorable Court to Clarify
Defendants’ Position (Doc. 63);
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Respond to Defendants’ Response at Document
70 (Doc. 73);
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave for an Expansion of Interrogatory Limit (Doc. 77);
4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Place Action in Abeyance (Doc. 80);
5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Compel (Doc. 84);
6. Defendants’ Combined Motion to Stay Discovery and Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Interrogatories (Doc. 85);
7. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Address the Issue of Legal Mail Seizure by the
Defendants without Notice to the Plaintiff and for Notice of Additional
Supplemental Action by Rule 15(d) Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. 87);
8. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Correct Misidentification of Document Number
in Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Compel (Doc. 88); and
9. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Respond and Compel the Defendants the Reply
to Discovery Requests and Interrogatories and to Object to Defendants’ Motion
to Stay Discovery (Doc. 89).
Page 1 of 9

The Court has reviewed the motions, and any responses thereto, and addresses each
motion, in turn, as set forth below.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MOVE THE HONORABLE COURT
TO CLARIFY DEFENDANTS’ POSITION (DOC. 63) AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE AT DOCUMENT 70 (DOC. 73)
In this motion to clarify (Doc. 63), Plaintiff seeks clarification of “Defendants’ position”,
complaining that the admissions and denials presented in Defendants’ answer was a “dramatic
shift” from the “previous narrative” Defendants have taken. As such, Plaintiff asks the Court to
clarify Defendants’ position.
Plaintiff’s complaint was screened by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed, under Bivens, on a First Amendment claim against Defendant
Edmeister for allegedly reading and confiscating Plaintiff’s privileged attorney-client
correspondence and documents, and a First Amendment claim against Defendant Walton for
refusing to return Plaintiff’s privileged attorney-client correspondence and documents.
Following the filing of the Court’s screening order, Defendants timely filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 25). The motion to dismiss was denied by District Judge Nancy
J. Rosenstengel on January 8, 2016 (Doc. 45), and Defendants filed their timely answer on January
22, 2016 (Doc. 54).
In Plaintiff’s motion now before the Court, it seems Plaintiff is complaining that
Defendants failed to timely file an answer to his complaint and instead filed a motion to dismiss.
Further, Plaintiff indicates that Defendants shifted their position on various issues from the filing
of their motion to dismiss to the filing of their answer.
With regard to the filing of an answer, Plaintiff is advised that Defendants’ answer was
timely filed. Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a defendant files a
Page 2 of 9

motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the defendant’s answer is not due until 14 days after
the Court’s ruling on said motion.

Such is the circumstance here.

As the Court denied

Defendants’ motion to dismiss on January 8, 2016, they had until January 22, 2016 to file their
answer.
With regard to Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendants’ answer contradicts admissions made
in their previously-filed motion to dismiss and supporting documents, Plaintiff is advised that
insofar as any discrepancies do exist (Plaintiff failed to articulate precisely what contradictions
Defendants allegedly made), such discrepancies are not relevant and, importantly, Defendants are
required to adhere to different standards when filing an answer and a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
is further advised that if he believes discrepancies do exist, he may utilize traditional tools of
discovery to seek clarification regarding Defendants’ position on the factual issues relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify (Doc. 63) is DENIED.
Subsequent to the filing of Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion to clarify, Plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to respond to Defendants’ Document #70 (Doc. 73). Document 70 is
Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion to clarify. As such, Plaintiff is seeking leave of Court
to file a reply to Defendants’ response. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), reply briefs are not favored
and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state
the exceptional circumstances. Here, Plaintiff referenced no exceptional circumstances that
warrant the filing of a reply brief. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to respond to Defendants’
Document #70 (Doc. 73) is DENIED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR AN EXPANSION OF INTERROGATORY LIMIT (DOC. 77)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to expand the interrogatory limit set forth in the
Court’s Scheduling and Discovery Order (Doc. 41). Plaintiff asserts that his good cause is that his
Page 3 of 9

incarceration makes it almost impossible to take depositions and he must rely on interrogatories
for such testimony. Further, Plaintiff indicates that he “fully intends to send interrogatories to the
dropped Defendants”. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
While the Court will entertain a request to expand the interrogatory limit, said request
appears premature at this juncture as Plaintiff has not indicated what interrogatories he seeks to
serve upon Defendants beyond the Court-imposed limit and, moreover, has not provided any
particular justification for an expansion of the limit. Plaintiff is ADVISED that he may refile his
motion when he can articulate why, specifically, he needs additional interrogatories. Any refiled
motion should include Plaintiff’s proposed interrogatories. Plaintiff is further ADVISED that
interrogatories may only be propounded on parties to an action; as such, he may not propound
interrogatories on non-parties, including “dropped defendants.”
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PLACE ACTION IN ABEYANCE (DOC. 80)
In this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay this action pending his transfer to another
institution. Plaintiff explains that he has been transferred to another federal institution and is
uncertain when or where he will arrive at his final destination. Based on a review of the docket, it
appears that Plaintiff has indeed been transferred to Seagoville Federal Correctional Institution in
Texas. Plaintiff filed his notice of change of address on April 1, 2016. As such, it appears that
Plaintiff’s transfer is complete. Plaintiff did not miss any deadlines in this matter and has been
granted an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment due to his
transfer and the attendant delays such transfers have on litigation. Based on these circumstances,
it does not appear necessary to stay this action. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 80) is
DENIED.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that he may request reasonable extensions of time, as

necessary, to make necessary filings and meet scheduling deadlines in this matter if he is again
Page 4 of 9

transferred.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO COMPEL (DOC. 84) AND
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRECT MISIDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT NUMBER
IN PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO COMPEL (DOC. 88)
In his motion to compel (Doc. 84), Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to respond
to his interrogatory requests, complaining that Defendants’ objections are not valid and
Defendants are attempting to circumvent the spirit and purpose of discovery. The Court notes
that following the filing of his motion to compel, Plaintiff filed a motion to correct a
misidentification of a document number in his motion to compel (Doc. 88). Plaintiff’s motion to
correct is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s reference to Document 67 in paragraph 6 of his motion to
compel is hereby changed to Document 70.
In their response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to
comply with the requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) in that Plaintiff did not include the required
certification regarding conferral, nor did he confer with counsel regarding discovery in this matter.
The Court finds that this argument is not persuasive in this circumstance as Plaintiff’s
incarceration necessarily limits his ability to engage in meaningful discussions about discovery
issues. Defendants, however, also contend that their objections were valid and Plaintiff is not
entitled to the discovery requested.
In support of their position, Defendants assert that their objections were not boilerplate, as
asserted by Plaintiff, but adequately explained and applied to the case at hand. Moreover,
Defendants assert that even where the requests were overly broad, vague, or otherwise
objectionable on their face, Defendants produced relevant, non-privileged documents.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s requests, and the objections thereto, and finds that
Defendants objections are valid and appropriate. The Court finds it unnecessary to address every
Page 5 of 9

request and the response and/or objection thereto. Generally, the Court admonishes Plaintiff that
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits discovery to relevant, nonprivileged
matters so long as the discovery requested is proportional to the needs of the case. In this
instance, Plaintiff’s claims, and the relevant factual issues, appear quite narrow, whereas
Plaintiff’s requests are overly broad and have not been sufficiently narrowed in time or scope.
Finally, the Court is cognizant of the security concerns presented with providing much of the
information Plaintiff seeks, especially in light of the fact that the Court finds that the information
sought is not directly related to Plaintiff’s claims.

In particular, the Court agrees with

Defendants’ objection to providing duty rosters for both the X-Unit and USP Marion in that it
would allow inmates to know the precise number of staff members working in various areas of the
institution at a given time.
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 84) is DENIED.
DEFENDANTS’ COMBINED MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL INTERROGATORIES (DOC. 85)
In this motion, Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery in this matter pending a ruling
on their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity. Defendants also move the Court
to deny Plaintiff’s motion for additional interrogatories. As Plaintiff’s motion for additional
interrogatories has been denied (as set forth above), Defendants’ request is MOOT.
With regard to Defendants’ request that the Court stay discovery, Defendants assert that
the parties have already engaged in general written discovery, and Plaintiff has issued
interrogatories and five sets of requests for production of documents to Defendants. In response
to said requests, Defendants aver they have provided over 200 pages of documents. As such,
Defendants contend that Plaintiff has sufficient information to respond to the pending motion for
Page 6 of 9

summary judgment and any further discovery pertaining to issues other than qualified immunity
circumvents the goal of avoiding any unnecessary expense and the burden of litigation. While the
Court is mindful that a stay of discovery may be appropriate in circumstances where a pending
dispositive motion can resolve the case and where the requested discovery is unlikely to produce
facts necessary to defeat the motion, see Landstrom v. Illinois Dep’t of Children & Family Servs.,
892 F.2d 670, 674 (7th Cir. 1990), the Court is not inclined to stay discovery pending a ruling on
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this instance. Importantly, the Court notes that
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and finds that justice so requires Plaintiff be able to continue with
discovery unabated at this time so as to be able to fully respond to Defendants’ motion and ensure
there is adequate time to complete discovery prior to the September 23, 2016 deadline.
Moreover, the Court is unaware of any pending discovery propounded on Defendants by Plaintiff
that would necessitate a response, thereby causing Defendants to incur significant expense. For
these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 85) is DENIED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF LEGAL MAIL SEIZURE
BY THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF AND FOR
NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL ACTION BY RULE 15(D) FED. R. CIV. P. (DOC. 87)
In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to add an additional tort claim to this action relating to events
occurring on or about January 5, 2015 in which Defendants allegedly confiscated legal material
addressed to Plaintiff.
Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff’s motion, asserting it should be denied as Plaintiff
failed to provide a proposed amended pleading as required by Local Rule 15.1 and, even if the
Court construed Plaintiff’s motion as a proposed pleading, the new allegations should not be
joined to the instant action.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court construes it as a motion to amend the
Page 7 of 9

complaint.

Defendants correctly cite Local Rule 15.1, which provides that “[a] proposed

amendment to a pleading or amended pleading itself must be submitted at the time the motion to
amend is filed.” Here, Plaintiff failed to submit a proposed amended pleading and the Court will
not allow amendment by interlineation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 87) is DENIED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND AND COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS
TO REPLY TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND INTERROGATORIES
AND TO OBJECT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY (DOC. 89)
In this motion to compel, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s
written discovery requests, including Defendant Edmeister’s objections and responses to
Plaintiff’s first, second, and third interrogatories, Defendant Walton’s objections and responses to
Plaintiff’s first and second interrogatories, and Defendants’ objections and responses to Plaintiff’s
second, third, fourth, and fifth requests for production of documents.

Defendants timely

responded to Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 92).
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff fails to address the particular objections and/or responses
he believes are inadequate. Rather, Plaintiff lodges general complaints concerning Defendants’
objections, complaining in particular about Defendants’ refusal to respond to requests to produce
that are beyond the prescribed limits. With regard to this contention, Plaintiff asserts that he can
find no limit in the Scheduling Order or Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that sets
any such limits. Plaintiff is mistaken. The Court’s Scheduling and Discovery Order clearly
states that each party is limited to serving 15 requests for production of documents (Doc. 42).
Plaintiff has not received an increase on this limit. As such, insofar as Plaintiff’s motion seeks to
compel Defendants to respond to requests to produce beyond the allotted amount, Plaintiffs’
Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff also complains about Defendants’ various objections to his discovery requests,
Page 8 of 9

generally asserting that the objections were “boilerplate” and meritless. Glaringly, Plaintiff failed
to address with any particularity which responses and/or objections he had an issue with and
proffer an explanation as to why the particular requests were proper and not objectionable. The
Court is not inclined to engage in such an analysis for Plaintiff. As the Court finds Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel is lacking in substance and particularly, it must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 29, 2016

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 9 of 9