HOLLEMAN v. ARAMARK CORPORATION et al

Filing 141

ENTRY - Mr. Holleman's motions to compel production of documents from the DOC (Dkt. 129 ) is DENIED and his motion to compel (Dkt. 126 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with the foregoing. To the extent that his motions are granted, the defendants shall have fifteen days from the issuance of this Entry in which to comply with the rulings contained herein. ***SEE ENTRY***. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/25/2013. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ROBERT L. HOLLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Entry Discussing Motions to Compel Discovery
This matter is before the Court on two motions to compel discovery from a non-party, the
Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), filed by plaintiff Robert Holleman (“Mr.
Holleman”). A party may seek an order compelling disclosure when someone on which
discovery has properly been served has failed to respond or has provided evasive or incomplete
responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2); (a)(3). The Court has broad discretion when reviewing a
discovery dispute and “should independently determine the proper course of discovery based
upon the arguments of the parties.” Gile v. United Airlines Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996).
As discussed below, Mr. Holleman’s motions to compel (Dkt. 126 and Dkt. 129) are granted in
part and denied in part.
I. The motion to compel filed on June 7, 2013
First, in his motion to compel filed on June 7, 2013, (Dkt. 129). Mr. Holleman objects to
the DOC’s responses arguing that the attorney who represents the State Defendants in this action
should not be permitted to provide the responses to his non-party requests to the DOC. But the
attorney representing the State Defendants here is a Deputy Attorney General for the State of
Indiana. The Indiana Attorney General’s Office has a statutory duty to represent state agencies

that are engaged in litigation. See IND. CODE §§ 4-6-1-6, -2-1. It was not improper for this
attorney to respond to non-party requests served on the DOC. It was also not improper for the
responses to refer to discovery responses already provided to Mr. Holleman by the State
Defendants. To require otherwise would be unreasonably duplicative. For these reasons, Mr.
Holleman’s motion to compel (Dkt. 129) is denied.
II. The motion to compel filed on June 6, 2013
Mr. Holleman’s similar motion to compel based on his disagreements with the DOC’s
responses to his non-party requests for documents (Dkt. 126) is granted in part and denied in
part consistent with the following.
First, many of Mr. Holleman’s requests to the DOC are duplicative of those already
served on and responded to by the State Defendants. These include Requests 1, 3, and 6. To the
extent that the DOC and the State Defendants maintain custody and control of the same
documents, the Court discerns no conflict in permitting the DOC to respond by referring Mr.
Holleman to document responses already provided by the State Defendants. Accordingly, Mr.
Holleman’s motion to compel responses to these Requests is denied to the extent Mr. Holleman
asks the DOC to provide responses duplicative of those responses already provided. To the
extent the Court has granted Mr. Holleman’s motions to compel responses to similar requests by
the State Defendants, the Court expects that the State Defendants will provide those responses
and no duplication is necessary by the DOC. If the DOC has in its custody documents not in the
custody of the State Defendants responsive to Requests 1, 3, and 6, the motion is granted
consistent with the following: The DOC shall state with fifteen days whether there are
responsive documents in its possession that were not provided by the State Defendants. If such

documents exist, the DOC defendants shall produce them within fifteen days of the date this
Entry is issued.
With respect to some Requests, Mr. Holleman asserts his disbelief that there are no
documents in the DOC’s possession. These include Requests 2, 4, and 5. Mr. Holleman’s
disagreement with the DOC’s responses that no documents exist or that all documents have been
provided is insufficient to compel further production and his motions to compel are denied as to
these requests.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Holleman’s motions to compel production of documents from the DOC (Dkt. 129) is
DENIED and his motion to compel (Dkt. 126) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
consistent with the foregoing. To the extent that his motions are granted, the defendants shall
have fifteen days from the issuance of this Entry in which to comply with the rulings contained
herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/25/2013
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