Williams v. Hinyard et al

Filing 71

RULING granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Compel. Within 14 days the defendants shall serve a supplemental response to requests for production of documents numbers 3, 4, 9 and 10. In all other respects, the plaintiffs motion is denied, the parties shall bear their respective costs incurred in connection with this motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 10/3/2011. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

REGINALD WILLIAMS (#364941)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

ERIC HINYARD, ET AL

NUMBER 08-656-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY
Before

the

court

is

the

plaintiff’s

Motion

For

Order

Compelling Discovery. Record document number 68. No opposition or
other response has been filed.
Plaintiff moved to compel answers to interrogatories and
responses to requests for the production of documents.1
Plaintiff argued that the defendants failed to respond to any
interrogatory he propounded.

However, a review of the record

showed that the defendants filed answers to interrogatories on July
26, 2011.

Defendants responded to each interrogatory without

objections.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel answers to interrogatories is
denied.
Plaintiff also moved to compel responses to requests for
production of documents numbers 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10.
In request for production of documents number 3 the plaintiff
sought a copy of the Hawk 1 and 2 Administrative Segregation

1

Record document numbers 45 and 46, respectively.

Placement

Log

production

of

Book

for

February

documents

number

19,
4

2007.

the

In

request

for

sought

the

plaintiff

production of copies of Camp C Tiger 1 and 2 Administrative
Segregation Placement Logbook for February 19, 2007.

In request

for production of documents number 9 the plaintiff sought copies of
logbook entries on February 19, 2007, showing the time chemical
agents were checked out by defendants Hinyard and Conrad.

In

request for production of documents number 10 the plaintiff sought
production of copies of an inventory log indicating the number of
cans

of

chemical

agent

that

are

stored

in

Administrative

Segregation Hawk 1 and 2.
Defendants responded either that they “have no documents
responsive to this request” or “[t]here are no documents responsive
to this request.”

Defendants’ responses are unclear.

Defendants

could mean that the log books and inventory never existed, or they
could

mean

that

the

logs

books

and

inventory

are

no

longer

available, i.e. have been destroyed for some reason, or simply
could not be located for some reason.

Defendants will be required

to serve a supplemental response clarifying their responses to
these four document requests.
In request for production of documents number 8 the plaintiff
sought production of copies of all grievances filed between January
2003 and March 2011 against defendants Eric Hinyard and Juan Conrad
involving the use of force.

2

Defendants objected on grounds that the request is overly
broad

and

the

information

is

not

calculated

to

lead

to

the

discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants objection is well-founded.

Plaintiff’s request is

overly broad and “all grievances” filed between January 2003 and
March 2011” are not relevant to the plaintiff’s claim that he was
subjected to an excessive use of force on February 19, 2007.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion For Order Compelling
Discovery is granted in part and denied in part.

Within 14 days

the defendants shall serve a supplemental response to requests for
production of documents numbers 3, 4, 9 and 10 explaining whether
the log books and inventory ever existed, and if the did, why they
are no longer available to be produced. In all other respects, the
plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Fed.R.Civ.P.,

the

parties

Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(5)(C),

shall

bear

their

respective

costs

incurred in connection with this motion.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, October 3, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3