Wallace v. Geo Group Inc et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 18 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 12/10/13. (crt,Kennedy, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

RAINEY WALLACE

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-2745

VS.

:

JUDGE MINALDI

THE GEO GROUP., INC. ET AL.

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is the motion to compel [doc. 18] filed by plaintiff Rainey Wallace
(hereafter, “Wallace”).

Wallace alleges incomplete discovery responses by the following

defendants: The GEO Group, Inc. (hereafter, “GEO”); Lieutenant Travis Weldon (hereafter “Lt.
Weldon”); Lieutenant Brandon Loftin (hereafter, “Loftin”); Sergeant Joshua Manuel (hereafter,
“Manuel”); and Sergeant Trekuisek Lawrence (hereafter, “Lawrence”) (hereafter, collectively,
“defendants”). Id. Defendants respond that their discovery responses were appropriate and that
their objections are valid. See doc. 28; doc. 30.
For the following reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Wallace’s motion to compel [doc. 18] is
hereby DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
This matter concerns events occurring while Wallace was an inmate at the Allen
Correctional Center, a Louisiana-owned prison operated by GEO. Doc. 18, att. 2, p. 1. Wallace
alleges that on July 10, 2007, he was held down and beaten by several GEO employees while his
hands were cuffed behind his back. Id.
Wallace submitted two requests for administrative remedy procedure (“ARP”) regarding
the incident. Doc. 18, att. 4, p. 1. GEO received the ARPs on July 12, 2007. Captain Terry
-1-

Langley (hereafter, “Langley”) conducted an investigation and wrote a report. Doc. 18, att. 4, p.
1; see also doc. 28, pp. 1–3.
On July 13, 2007, Wallace withdrew one of his ARPs, noting that he was satisfied with
his remedy. Id.; see also doc. 18, att. 8, p. 3. His other ARP was later denied as duplicative.
Doc. 18, att. 4, p. 1. Wallace alleges that Langley coerced him into withdrawing the ARP, [doc.
18, att. 2, p. 8], but Langley denies this allegation. Doc. 18, att. 4, p. 1.
On June 24, 2008, Wallace sued defendants in the 33rd Judicial District Court in and for
Allen Parish, Louisiana. Doc. 18, att. 2, p. 1. Wallace’s petition argued that defendants used
excessive force against him in violation of his Eighth-Amendment rights. Doc. 1, att. 1, p. 2.
Therefore, Wallace argued that defendants were liable to him under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Louisiana tort law. Id. pp. 1–2. The case was eventually removed to this court.
Wallace propounded discovery to defendants on several occasions in both state and
federal court. See generally doc. 18, att. 3. Wallace here seeks an order compelling defendants
to fully answer that discovery. Wallace focuses on the following areas in which he claims
defendants improperly objected to his discovery requests: (A) GEO’s contention that Langley’s
Report is privileged; (B) Lawrence’s responses to Wallace’s request for admissions; and (C)
GEO, Weldon, and Manuel’s objection to Wallace’s contention interrogatories.
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
The party posing discovery may move to compel the disclosure of any materials
requested so long as such discovery is relevant and otherwise discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
37(a) (2013). “The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or persons failing to make disclosure or
discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Id.

-2-

Materials and information are discoverable if they are non-privileged and “relevant to any
party’s claim or defense” or if they appear “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2013). The discovery rules are accorded a broad
and liberal treatment to effect their purpose of adequately informing litigants in civil trials.
Hebert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979). Nevertheless, discovery does have boundaries,
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947), and it is well established that the scope of
discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Burns v Thiokol Chemical Corp., 483
F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1973).
Considering the above standard, each of Wallace’s arguments will be addressed in turn.
A. GEO’s Privilege Claim
Wallace’s initial discovery to GEO requested copies of any documents generated by
GEO as a result of their investigation of the incident at issue. Doc. 18, att. 3, pp. 1–2. GEO
produced copies of Wallace’s administrative and medical records. Id. However, GEO objected
to production of Langley’s report on the grounds that it was prepared in anticipation of litigation
and “exempted from discovery by La. R.S. 15:1176 and Louisiana Administrative Code
22:I325.” Id. After the case was removed to this court, Wallace requested documents related to
GEO’s investigation a second time. Doc. 18, att. 3, pp. 3–5. GEO again refused, stating the
same objections. Id.
Both the Federal and Louisiana rules of civil procedure shield from discovery documents
prepared in anticipation of litigation unless the party seeking such documents demonstrates: (a)
that the party has a substantial need for such documents in preparing its case; or (b) that the party
will suffer undue hardship or injustice if the documents are not produced. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
26(b)(3); La. Code. Civ. Proc. art. 1424 (A). When a party withholds privileged documents, that

-3-

party must expressly make the claim and describe the nature of the documents withheld in a
manner that will allow other parties to evaluate the privilege claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5);
La. Code Civ. Proc. art 1424(B).

Furthermore, Louisiana statutory law specifically protects

documents prepared in response to a prisoner’s administrative remedy request. See La. R.S. §
15:1176; La. Adm. Code tit. 22, pt. I., § 325(J)(7)(a).
Based on the above, GEO continues to maintain that Langley’s report and its supporting
documentation are clearly work-product privileged and statutorily protected. Doc. 28, p. 3, n. 1.
Wallace argues that, because his initial ARP was withdrawn, Langley’s report was not prepared
in response to an ARP and must therefore be produced. We disagree. Langley prepared his
report once he received Wallace’s ARP. That the ARP was later withdrawn does not change the
fact that the report was prepared in response to an ARP as contemplated by the statute. Under
the plain language of La. R.S. § 15:1176, Langley’s report and its supporting documentation are
protected from discovery.
Wallace further argues that, pursuant to the holding in Pope v. State, 792 So. 2d 713 (La.
2001), the statutory protection is inapplicable in tort actions. Doc. 18, att. 2, pp. 9–10. This
argument is incorrect.
In Pope the plaintiff successfully challenged the constitutionality of the ARP as it existed
at that time.

Specifically the Louisiana Supreme Court found that provisions of the ARP

requiring tort and other actions against the Louisiana Department of Corrections be raised
through an administrative procedure with only limited review by Louisiana district courts
violated a Louisiana constitutional provision that vested in the district courts original district
over all civil and criminal cases except those specifically provided otherwise by the constitution
itself. Pope had nothing at all to do with issues of discovery or whether and to what extent a

-4-

report prepared in response to a complaint by a prisoner might be considered privileged and not
subject to production. 1
Wallace finally argues that GEO failed to fully describe the withheld documents in such a
way that he may assess GEO’s privilege claim. Doc. 18, att. 2, p. 12. We are satisfied that GEO
has adequately described Langley’s report and its supporting documentation in its response to the
instant motion. Doc. 28, p. 3 at n.1.
For the foregoing reasons, Wallace’s motion to compel production of the Langley report
is DENIED.
B. Lawrence’s Denial of Request for Admission No. 2
Wallace argues that there is an inconsistency between: (A) the response to request for
admission number two by Lawrence; and (B) the response to interrogatory number eight by
GEO, Weldon, and Manuel. Doc. 18, att. 2, pp. 3–4.
In response to request for admission number two, Lawrence denied that she was
“disciplined, censored, requested to resign or quit [her] job because of [her] involvement in the
matter investigated.” Id. The response to interrogatory number eight by GEO, Weldon, and
Manuel indicated that Lawrence resigned prior to the imposition of any sanctions against her. Id.
at 4. Wallace argues that the answers are inconsistent.
Counsel for Lawrence argues that the instant motion improperly seeks an order
compelling Lawrence to change her answer. Doc. 30, p. 2. We agree. Wallace made a request
for admission that Lawrence denied. Even assuming responses to other discovery controverts the
denial of the request for admission there is no relief to be had from that circumstance through a
Motion to Compel
1

Act 89 of 2002 substantially amended the provisions of La. R.S. 15:1171, et seq., in order to cure the constitutional
problems identified in Pope.
-5-

Accordingly, Wallace’s motion to compel is DENIED insofar as it seeks an order
compelling Lawrence to change her answer.
C. Objections to Wallace’s Contention Interrogatories
In June of 2013 GEO, Weldon, and Manuel objected to Wallace’s contention
interrogatories as premature.

Doc. 18, att. 3, pp. 6–7. The objections suggested that the

appropriate time to respond would be upon completion of discovery. Id. Wallace notes that the
case has been ongoing for some time and trial is approaching. Doc. 18, att. 2, p. 13. While this
motion was under consideration that trial date has been continued and a scheduling conference is
set for a new trial date to be selected. Doc. 49.
Under Rule 33(a)(2), “[a]n interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for
an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the court may
order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until
a pretrial conference or some other time.” Id. Insofar as the trial date has been continued and it
appears as though discovery is incomplete, the motion will be DENIED at this time.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to compel, [doc. 18] is
hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE this 10th day of December, 2013.

-6-