Washington v. Tubls et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 42 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 12/19/13. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
RUDOLPH WASHINGTON
LA. DOC #308049
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-0217
SECTION P
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

MAJOR TUBBS AND
LT. COLEMAN

MAG. JUDGE KAREN HAYES
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Compel, [doc. # 42], filed by Plaintiff Rudolph
Washington. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.1
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Rudolph Washington filed the instant civil rights complaint on January
24, 2013. [doc. # 1]. Plaintiff alleged that on August 29, 2012, while he was incarcerated at the
Richwood Correctional Center (RCC), he was the victim of excessive force at the hands of the
two named Defendants, Major Tubbs and Lt. Michael Coleman. Id. at 3. He also alleged that he
was denied medical attention and that he lost some personal property when he was transferred to
the Jackson Parish Correctional Center (JPCC). Id. at 4.
On May 9, 2013, this Court ordered Defendants to “provide to plaintiff all medical
records, warden’s unusual occurrence reports, and all other documents pertinent to the issues in
this case, that are in their possession.” [doc. # 12, p. 2]. The Court further instructed Plaintiff to
file a motion to compel if he did not receive any of these documents within the prescribed time

1

As this is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive
of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing
order of this Court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a)
and L.R. 74.1(W).

period. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to employ discovery to obtain any other information
requested. Id.
Subsequently, on August 7, 2013, Defendants filed a “Notice of Compliance” [doc. # 23]
indicating that they provided Plaintiff all medical records, warden’s unusual occurrence reports,
and all other pertinent documents. Defendants supplemented their responses four times in order
to fully comply with the Court’s order. [See doc. #s 30, 39, 50, 52].
On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff asked the Court to compel Defendants to produce the
following:
(1) Administrative Hearing-Disciplinary Board report; (2) Offender Grievance-on
food not being serve at the right heating food being serve warm or cold and the
Kitchen beening nasty [sic]; and (3) Offender Grievance-Officer disrespecting me
calling me a Pu??y a?? Nega? [sic].
[doc. # 42, p. 1]. On the same day, Plaintiff filed an associated “Memorandum” asking the Court
to compel the production of surveillance camera footage. [doc. # 45]. On November 26, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a “Brief” in support of his Motion to Compel that included a supplemental request
to compel the production of a “Request Form-asking for a trade for carpenter or catering.” [doc.
# 53, p. 1]. In that same document, Plaintiff sought to compel Defendants to answer several
interrogatories that Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to fully answer. Id. at 2.
Defendants, in response, essentially aver that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is moot
because they have complied with the Court’s Order requiring them to provide Plaintiff with all
pertinent documents and have also fully complied with all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests. [doc.
# 55, p. 1]. Defendants make no claim of privilege and argue only that they have provided
Plaintiff with all of the pertinent information that they have.

2

Law and Analysis
Discovery requests for documents and tangible things are governed by Rule 34 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rule, in relevant part, states that “[a] party may serve on
any other party a request . . . to produce . . . any designated documents or electronically stored
information–including . . . sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations . . . .
FED . R. CIV . P. 34(a). Interrogatories to parties are governed by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. That Rule, in pertinent part, states that “[e]ach interrogatory must, to the extent
it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED . R. CIV . P.
33(b)(3). Motions to compel are authorized by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection. This motion may be made if . . . a party fails to answer an
interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or if a party fails to respond that inspection will be
permitted–or fails to permit inspection–as requested under Rule 34.” FED . R. CIV . P. 37(a).
Further, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
disclose, answer, or respond.” Id.
However, a court cannot compel a party to produce documents that the party does not
possess or that the Court does not know exist. See Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron and
Metal Co., 576 F. Supp. 511, 513 (W.D. Pa. 1983) (Rule 34 requires only that a party produce
documents that are already in existence). “Ordinarily, the representation of a party’s attorney that
no additional documents exist is sufficient to defeat a motion to compel absent credible evidence
that the representation is inaccurate. Consequently, if plaintiffs . . . ‘do not provide any evidence
demonstrating that responsive documents do, in fact, exist and are being unlawfully withheld,
3

their motion to compel must fail.’” Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Ltd., 2013 WL 1363738, at
*6 (S.D. Ohio April 3, 2013) (citing Alexander v. F.B.I., 194 F.R.D. 299, 301 (D.D.C. 2000)).
“Without more specific information triggering some reason for doubt, the Court must take the
producing party . . . at its word when it claims to have produced everything it has.” Aristocrat
Techs. v. Int’l Game Tech., 2009 WL 3573327, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2009). In the same way,
a court cannot compel a party to more completely answer interrogatories when the court is not
presented with any credible evidence indicating that the responding party’s answers are “evasive
or incomplete.” See FED . R. CIV . P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii).
Here, Defendants, in response to Plaintiff’s first request for “Administrative HearingDisciplinary Board report, Offender Grievance-on food not being serve at the right heating food
being serve warm or cold and the Kitchen beening nasty [sic], and Offender Grievance-Officer
disrespecting me calling me a Pu??y a?? Nega? [sic]”, state that they have given Plaintiff all of
the requested documents. [doc. # 55, p. 2]. Defendants aver that they have searched through all
of Plaintiff’s records and have not found any documents or records responsive to his specific
requests.2 Similarly, in response to Plaintiff’s request for surveillance tape footage, Defendants
state, “an inquiry was made to the Richwood Correctional Center concerning the existence of any
video surveillance recordings and it was learned that no such recordings exist.” Id. at 3.3
Further, in response to Plaintiff’s supplemental request to compel the production of a “Request
2

Kayla Blossom, the business manager at Richwood Correctional Center, submits an
affidavit swearing that she searched the files of Richwood Correctional Center and that she has
submitted all of the responsive records and medical files that her search uncovered. [doc. # 551].
3

Affiant Blossom also states that her search has not uncovered any video surveillance
recordings of Plaintiff. Id.
4

Form-asking for a trade for carpenter or catering,” Defendants aver that “if such a document was
in the records at the Richwood Correctional Center, the records would have previously been
provided . . . .” [doc. # 55, p. 3].
Plaintiff, as mentioned above, also makes several complaints regarding Defendants’
interrogatory responses. He first argues that Defendant Coleman failed to fully answer
Interrogatory No. 9 because Coleman failed to provide the names of various nurses that treated
him. [doc. # 53, p. 2]. However, as Defendants contend, a review of Interrogatory No. 9 shows
that Plaintiff only asked Coleman to identify and attach copies of medical records. [See doc. #
34, p. 3]. Defendants state that they have provided all responsive medical records. [doc. # 55, p.
2]. In like manner, Defendants also aver that they have fully and truthfully answered the
remaining interrogatories at issue. Id. at 4-5.
Upon consideration, Defendants’ representation that they have produced all responsive
documents and have fully answered Plaintiff’s interrogatories is sufficient.4 Plaintiff has not
provided any credible evidence to justify finding that Defendants possess the requested
documents, that Defendants can obtain the documents, or that the documents even exist. Nor has
Plaintiff provided any evidence to justify finding that Defendants have not completely answered
Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Plaintiff does not provide enough facts to substantiate his contentions.
Defendants’ discovery responses are satisfactory.
4

Although Defendants have supplemented their disclosures several times, the Court
nevertheless reminds Defendants of their ongoing obligation to supplement their disclosures. “A
party who has . . . responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for
admission–must supplement or correct its disclosure response: in a timely manner if the party
learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if
the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties
during the discovery process or in writing.” FED . R. CIV . P. 26(e).
5

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, [doc. #
42], is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED at Monroe, Louisiana, this 19th day of December, 2013.

6