HOLLEMAN v. ARAMARK CORPORATION et al

Filing 108

ENTRY - Mr. Holleman's motions for entry upon land [Dkt. 80 ], [Dkt. 81 ], and his motion to compel [Dkt. 92 ] are each DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/5/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROBERT L. HOLLEMAN,
vs.

Plaintiff,

ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-323-TWP-DKL

ENTRY

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Robert L. Holleman’s (“Mr.
Holleman”) motions for entry upon land, [Dkt. 80] and [Dkt. 81], and his motion to
compel the defendants to allow entry upon land [Dkt. 92]. Mr. Holleman seeks to be
transported from the Pendleton Correctional Facility where he is currently being
housed to the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, where he was housed during the
time of the incidents complained of in this case. He seeks to inspect the Secure
Control Unit re-therm and photograph and videotape the food preparation and the
trays, pans and utensils used in food preparation. He also seeks leave for him or his
representative to search for “all writings of any kind, including but not limited to
correspondence, memoranda, notes, pamphlets, books, computer printouts, fax
documents, graphs, photographs, videotapes, and electronically stored documents,
whether stored on tapes, cassettes, computers or other similar devices.” Mr.
Holleman further seeks access to witnesses who have information regarding his
claims.

Mr. Holleman’s motions [Dkt. 80], [Dkt., 81], and [Dkt. 92] are each denied.
First, an inspection of the food preparation area and tools is not directed to the
discovery of relevant evidence or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Mr. Holleman’s claims involve the conditions of food preparation in 2008
and 2009. Examining, photographing, or videotaping food preparation areas in their
present condition would provide little information regarding the state of the food
preparation areas several years ago. In addition, much of the discovery Mr.
Holleman seeks “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient,
less burdensome, or less expensive” and therefore must be limited pursuant to Rule
26(b)(2)(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For example, Mr. Holleman can
obtain the information he seeks through interrogatories, requests for production of
documents, or other methods. To the extent Mr. Holleman complains that the
defendants have failed to respond properly to his discovery requests, those discovery
issues can be addressed in other ways, such as through the motions to compel which
Mr. Holleman has already filed.
Next, Mr. Holleman seeks access to a wide range of written materials and
unidentified witnesses. Again, these materials can be obtained through requests for
production of documents, subpoenas, or other written methods. The production of
the materials he seeks does not require the transportation of Mr. Holleman or his
representative to the prison facility where these documents exist.
Finally, the defendants have objected to the transportation of Mr. Holleman
to the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility based on security concerns. There is no

doubt that transporting a prisoner and permitting him access to facilities and files
presents security issues. The court defers to the judgment of the prison officials in
this context. See Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1269 (7th Cir. 1984)
For all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Holleman’s motions for entry upon land
[Dkt. 80], [Dkt. 81], and his motion to compel [Dkt. 92] are each DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/05/2013

Date: _________________

Distribution:
ROBERT HOLLEMAN
10067
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana