Ball v. Sanders et al

Filing 73

RULING: Plaintiff's Motion and Order Compelling Discovery is granted in part. Within 30 days from the date of this ruling, defendant Kevin Normand shall respond to the Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories. In all other respects the Mot ion and Order Compelling Discovery is denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted. Within 30 days from the date of this ruling defendant John Sanders shall respond to the plaintiffs fourth and fifth sets of interrogatories. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/9/2013. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHARLIE BALL (#459919)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

JOHN SANDERS, ET AL

NUMBER 13-282-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before

the

court

are

the

plaintiff’s

Motion

Compelling Discovery and his Motion to Compel.
numbers 68 and 71, respectively.

and

Order

Record document

The motions are opposed.1

In his Motion and Order Compelling Discovery, the plaintiff
moved to compel responses to his Second Set of Interrogatories2
directed

to

defendant

Randall

Stead

and

his

Third

Set

of

Interrogatories3 directed to defendant Kevin Normand4.
In his Motion to Compel, the plaintiff moved again to compel
defendants Randall Stead and Kevin Normand to respond to his
second5 and third6 sets of interrogatories.

In addition, the

plaintiff moved to compel defendants Stead and Normand to respond

1

Record document number 72.

2

Record document number 16.

3

Record document number 23.

4

Identified as Kevin Norman in the complaint but hereinafter
referred to as Kevin Normand.
5

Record document number 16.

6

Record document number 23.

to his fourth7 and fifth8 sets of interrogatories.
Defendants opposed the plaintiff’s motions to compel on the
ground that discovery closed on August 15, 2013.
interpretation

of

the

scheduling

order9

is

Defendants’

understandable.

However, because defendants Kevin Normand and John Sanders did not
execute

a

waiver

of

service

until

August

1

and

28,

2013,

respectively, the plaintiff will be given 90 days from the date of
waiver of service to complete discovery as to these defendants.
Defendants further argued that this court previously denied
the plaintiff’s motion to compel the same discovery. This argument
is incorrect.
A. Second Set of Interrogatories
In interrogatories 1 through 5 of the plaintiff’s Second Set
of Interrogatories propounded on defendant Randall Stead, the
plaintiff sought the last known address of defendants John Sanders
and Kevin Normand, an explanation as to why Sanders resigned with
a lawsuit pending against him and an explanation as to why Normand
refused to accept service (presumably of this lawsuit).
A review of the record showed that defendants Sanders and
Normand were served, answered the complaint10 and moved for summary

7

Record document number 55.

8

Record document number 58.

9

Record document number 4.

10

Record document numbers 18 and 32.

judgment11.
The discovery sought in interrogatories 1-5 is not relevant to
the plaintiff’s claims and not calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response to
interrogatories 1-5 is denied.
In

interrogatory

number

6,

the

plaintiff

asked

whether

defendant Stead could say with certainty that he would be shown on
camera dutifully doing his job or whether the video would show
otherwise.
The discovery sought in interrogatory 6 is not relevant to the
plaintiff’s claims and not calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. What a video surveillance camera recorded may
be relevant, but how the defendant characterizes what is on any
video surveillance is not relevant.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel

defendant Stead to respond to interrogatory number 6 is denied.
B. Third Set of Interrogatories
In the Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories propounded to
defendant Normand, the plaintiff sought an explanation of the
policy for visual body cavity searches, whether the visual body
cavity search conducted on the plaintiff on January 15, 2013 was in
accordance with the policy, whether the defendant is required to
read and understand policies, an explanation of the actions to be
taken in accordance with procedure should an inmate refuse a

11

Record document number 69.

search, the number of times defendant Sanders sprayed a chemical
agent in the plaintiff’s cell and whether he has abused any inmate.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his Third Set of
Interrogatories

propounded

to

defendant

Normand

is

granted.

Defendant Normand shall respond to interrogatories 1-6 of the
Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories within 30 days from the
date of this ruling.
C. Fourth Set of Interrogatories
In

the

Plaintiff’s

Fourth

Request

for

Interrogatories

propounded to defendant Sanders, the plaintiff sought to discover
the amount of chemical agent dispersed in a one second burst, the
weight of the chemical agent used on January 15, 2013, the number
of bursts contained in the can used on January 15, 2013, how a one
second burst of chemical agent is administered, the dimensions of
the cell involved in the incident, the estimated spread of a one
second burst of chemical agent, whether an officer can determine
whether he sprayed more or less than a one second burst, the rules
and procedures for penitentiary employees, and why he falsified
documents related to service of process regarding his employment.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his Fourth Request
for Interrogatories propounded to defendant Sanders is granted.
Defendant Sanders shall respond to interrogatories 1-10 of the
Plaintiff’s Fourth Request for Interrogatories within 30 days from
the date of this ruling.

D. Plaintiff’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories
In

the

Plaintiff’s

Fifth

Request

for

Interrogatories

propounded to defendant Sanders, the plaintiff sought to discover
whether the defendant understood the policy regarding visual body
cavity search, whether there is a policy in effect to deal with a
prisoner who refuses to undergo a search, whether the defendant has
ever been disciplined while employed at the penitentiary, whether
the plaintiff met the guidelines for a visual body cavity search,
the cause of the search, whether prisoners may be punished if they
refuse to comply with an unlawful procedure, describe how a visual
body cavity search is performed on a prisoner who has not left his
cell prior to the search and what is the objective of a search.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to his Fifth Request
for Interrogatories propounded to defendant Sanders is granted.
Defendant Sanders shall respond to interrogatories 1-8 of the
Plaintiff’s Fifth Request for Interrogatories within 30 days from
the date of this ruling.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion and Order Compelling
Discovery is granted in part.

Within 30 days from the date of this

ruling, defendant Kevin Normand shall respond to the Plaintiff’s
Third Set of Interrogatories. In all other respects the Motion and
Order Compelling Discovery is denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted.

Within 30 days from

the date of this ruling defendant John Sanders shall respond to the
plaintiff’s fourth and fifth sets of interrogatories.

Plaintiff’s

motion for sanctions is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 9, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE