Ocoee v. Louisville Metro Housing Authority, Sec. 8 et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge James D. Moyer on 12/11/12. For reasons stated 65 Motion to Compel is DENIED; 71 Motion for a hearing or to order files to be produced is DENIED. cc:counsel, Pltf pro se (SJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

SPRINGWATER OCOEE
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-336-H

LOUISVILLE METRO HOUSING AUTHORITY

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Not long ago, Ms. Ocoee filed a motion requesting certain discovery (docket no. 65),
which the district court referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for disposition (docket no.
73). Having reviewed Ms. Ocoee’s discovery requests, the responses thereto on file with this
court (docket no. 68), and being mindful of the district court’s reminder that Ms. Ocoee’s only
remaining claim in this matter is against the Louisville Metro Housing Authority (see docket no.
67), and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the magistrate judge finds that the responses are
appropriate and adequate.
Of Ms. Ocoee’s sixteen enumerated discovery requests, most are not relevant to her claim
that the Louisville Metro Housing Authority discriminated against her on the basis of race, age,
gender, or disability, nor are they reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. (For example, Request No. 8 asks for “[a]ll files listing deaths at St. Catherine Court
and notice to family for the last ten years” and Request No. 11 asks for “[a]ll reports of drug
activities, remedial actions by Staff of LMHA.”) Other requests seek information that, in
addition to not being likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information, predates the time
period in which the alleged discrimination took place. (For example, Request No. 10 asks for
“[a]ll files, inter-office emails and complaints pertaining to any and all illegal activities reported
by residents and security for the past 10 years.”)

The only request that is appropriately tailored to obtain relevant documents, or the
discovery of information reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is
Request Nos. 1, to which the LMHA has responded appropriately. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern discovery in federal civil cases such as this one,
a party is permitted simply to make the requested information available for inspection and
copying at a reasonable time and place. In this case, the defendant offered to permit Ms. Ocoee
to inspect the documents at its main office, and requested that Ms. Ocoee schedule an
appointment to do so through its attorney.1 This is permitted by the applicable rules.
There are four discovery requests (Nos. 2-4, 9, 13, 16) that could be construed as seeking
information reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, if they had been
more precisely written and narrower in scope. The defendant’s responses and objections to them
as they are currently written are appropriate, however.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ms. Ocoee’s motion to compel (docket
no. 65) and her motion for a hearing or to order files to be produced (docket no. 71) are
DENIED.
DATE:
cc:

December 11, 2012

plaintiff, pro se
counsel of record

1

In a related “Motion for Hearing by Default or to Order Files” (docket no. 71), Ms. Ocoee asserts that the
defendant’s response to Request No. 1 is untenable because she is afraid that her life would be in danger if she did
so. This response is premised on her misunderstanding that the inspection would take place at the defendant’s
attorney’s office, but, regardless, she has provided the court with no supportable reason for her belief that her life
would be in danger, even if the documents were to be inspected at the attorney’s office. Accordingly, the court will
deny this motion.

2