Williams v. Delaney et al

Filing 58

ORDER granting 53 Pltfs Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christine Noland on 1/24/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAVID J. WILLIAMS (#333462)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
TIM DELANEY, ASS’T WARDEN, ET AL.

NO. 11-0165-JJB-CN

O R D E R
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Production of Documents, rec.doc.no. 53.

This motion is not

opposed.
In August, 2011, the plaintiff propounded a Request for Production
of Documents to the defendants, see rec.doc.no. 22.

On or about

September 23, 2011, the defendants filed a response thereto, rec.doc.no.
42.

That initial response, however, appears to have been filed in error

inasmuch as it bears little similarity to the Request for Production
filed by the plaintiff.

On or about October 3, 2011, the defendants

filed a supplemental response, rec.doc.no. 50, which does appear to
respond to the plaintiff’s Requests. This response, however, in addition
to generally referring to documents previously produced by the defendants
as an initial disclosure ordered by the Court, objects to the plaintiff’s
Requests as calling for “privileged” information, as containing multiple
requests, and as being “vague, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not
likely or calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, material and
admissible evidence.”
Local Rule 7.5 of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that a
memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days
after

service

of

the

motion.

The

Rule

specifically

provides,

in

pertinent part:
Each respondent opposing a motion shall file a response, including
affidavits, memorandum, and such supporting documents as are then
available, within 21 days after service of the motion. Memoranda
shall contain a concise statement of the reasons in opposition to
the motion, and a citation of authorities upon which the respondent
relies.
As noted above, the present motion to compel was filed on October 12,
2011, and the Court’s electronic filing system indicates that notice of
the

filing

of

such

motion

was

served

electronically on October 14, 2011.

on

the

defendants’

counsel

More than twenty-one (21) days have

elapsed since service of the motion, and the defendants have failed to
file any opposition thereto.

The motion is therefore deemed to be

unopposed.
In addition to being unopposed, the undersigned finds that the
motion has merit and should be granted.

The plaintiff’s Requests are

reasonably clear, narrowly tailored, and relevant to the plaintiff’s
claim

of

alleged

excessive

force

occurring

on

October

6,

2010.

Specifically, in Request No. 1, the plaintiff seeks copies of the logbook
pages and time clock cards for the right and left side tiers of Tiger
Unit 1 at LSP on the pertinent date, between the hours of 6:00 and 11:30
a.m.

In Request No. 2, the plaintiff seeks copies of any and all

documents which reflect that a social worker may have been contacted
before the plaintiff was allegedly sprayed with irritant spray on that
date and any documents which may have been generated by a social worker
attending the plaintiff on that date.

In Request No. 3, the plaintiff

seeks copies of any documents reflecting the identity of the security
officer to whom the electronic capture shield was assigned on October 6,
2010, and reflecting whether the shield was working properly on that
date.

In Request No. 4, the plaintiff seeks copies of any letters or

grievances which may have been filed relative to complaints of excessive
force and/or harassment against defendants Butler, Hooker, Oubre, Savoy
and Sharp during the 2 years preceding the date of the Request.

And

Request No. 5 seeks the identities of all security officers who were
present on the left side tier of Tiger Unit 1 at LSP on October 6, 2010,
as well as the identity of Sgt. Woods (“who was assigned over 1-left/1right-tier” on October 6, 2010), “investigative officer Col. Achord” and
the “treatment center doctor” at LSP on the morning of that date.
It appears to the Court that the plaintiff’s Requests are reasonable
and should be allowed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents, rec.doc.no. 53, be and it is hereby GRANTED.

The defendants

shall file a response to the plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
Documents within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
Signed in chambers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, January 24, 2012.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTINE NOLAND