Griffin v. Sims et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 21 Motion to Compel, as specified in the body of ruling. FURTHER ORDER denying remainder of 21 Motion to Compel and Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 8/5/14. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
MARK GRIFFIN

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0310

VERSUS

*

JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER

LT. ROBERT SIMS, ET AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, is a
motion to compel discovery [doc. # 21], and associated request for reasonable expenses and fees,
filed by plaintiff Mark Griffin.1 For reasons assigned below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
Background
On February 8, 2013, Mark Griffin filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Larry Cox, Sheriff of Madison Parish, Louisiana; Lt. Robert Sims,
Madison Parish Sheriff’s Deputy and corrections officer at the Madison Parish Detention Center
(“MPDC”); and Officer Wendell Hughes, Madison Parish Sheriff’s Deputy and corrections
officer at the MPDC. Griffin alleges that on May 12, 2012, while an inmate at the MPDC, he
was beaten by defendant, Lt. Sims and another MPDC sheriff’s deputy while defendant, Hughes,
stood nearby and permitted the attack to occur. (Compl., ¶ 8). As a result of the attack, Griffin
sustained blurred/impaired vision, permanent scarring, mental anguish, and emotional disability.

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).

Id., ¶ 11). Consequently, Griffin seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s
fees. Id., Prayer.
On October 31, 2013, plaintiff served defendants with his First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents. (M/Compel, Exh. P1). On December 12, 2013,
defendants responded to the discovery requests. (M/Compel, ¶ 2). Dissatisfied with some of the
responses (specifically, Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, & 6 and Requests for Production Nos. 2-5 & 79), plaintiff’s counsel contacted defense counsel in early June 2014 in an unsuccessful effort to
bridge the discovery impasse. The instant motion to compel followed on June 13, 2014.
Defendants filed their opposition on June 23, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a reply, and the time to
do so has lapsed. Accordingly, the matter is ripe.
Law
Rule 33 provides that a party may serve an interrogatory on another party that relates to
any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a). Likewise, Rule 34
dictates that “a party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) . . . to
produce . . . any designated documents . . . or any tangible things” that are within the “party’s
possession, custody, or control . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1).2

2

Under Rule 26(b),
[u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in
the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence . . .
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
2

Rule 34's definition of “possession, custody, or control,” includes more than actual
possession or control of the materials; it also contemplates a party’s “legal right or practical
ability to obtain the materials from a nonparty to the action.” White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 2011 WL 3423388 (M.D. La. Aug. 4, 2011 (citations omitted). A party must “make a
reasonable search of all sources reasonably likely to contain responsive documents.” Id. A party
also is “charged with knowledge of what its agents know or what is in records available to it.”
Autery v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2010 WL 1489968 (W.D. La. Aug. 4, 2011) (citation
omitted).
A party objecting to discovery “must state with specificity the objection and how it relates
to the particular request being opposed . . .” Reyes v. Red Gold, Inc. 2006 WL 2729412 (S.D.
Tex. Sept. 25, 2006) (citations omitted). In other words, to escape the production requirement, a
responding party must interpose a valid objection to each contested discovery request. McLeod,
Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation
omitted). Conclusory objections that the requested discovery is “overly broad,” “burdensome,”
“oppressive,” and “irrelevant,” do not suffice. Id.
A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production against another
party when the latter has failed to answer an interrogatory or produce documents for inspection.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). An evasive or incomplete response is treated as a failure to

The courts understand the rule to provide for broad and liberal discovery. See Schlagenhauf v.
Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-5 (1964); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947).
Nonetheless, the scope of discovery is limited by relevance, albeit “relevance” is to be broadly
construed. Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982). Ultimately, the relevance inquiry
ends where it starts; i.e., the relevancy of a discovery request depends upon whether it is
“reasonably calculated” to lead to admissible evidence. Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
392 F.3d 812, 820 (5th Cir. 2004).
3

respond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4).
Analysis
The court will address the challenged discovery responses, in turn.
a)

Interrogatories

Interr. No. 3:

Does the Madison Parish Detention Center have surveillance cameras
which record and monitor the movements and activities of inmates at the
Detention Center?

Response:

Defendants submit that, at the time of the incident alleged herein, the
Detention Center did have surveillance cameras at the Detention Center.
However, defendants submit that no such recordings survive[] to date, as
footage from that time was likely recorded over or lost when the Detention
Center upgraded its surveillance technology.

Resolution:

Plaintiff contends that defendants’ response is “grossly inadequate” and “totally

lacking in all respect.” To the contrary, defendants answered the interrogatory, in full.

Interr. No. 4:

Give the name, address and telephone number of the officer in charge of
surveillance on the date in time of Mark Griffin’s beating.

Response:

Defendants submit the officers on duty on any date in question are
responsible for surveillance on their respective shifts. See attached log
sheet.

Resolution:

Defendants maintain that they provided plaintiff with the names of all of the

officers on duty, together with their incident reports. The court observes, however, that plaintiff
also requested the officers’ addresses and telephone numbers. Defendants did not object to the
disclosure of this information. Thus, insofar as they have not produced the officers’ addresses
and telephone numbers, defendants shall supplement their response to include this information
within the next 14 days from the date of this order.

4

Interr. No. 6:

For any period following the beating of Mark Griffin, please state whether
or not any inmates has or have filed any complaint, whether formal or
informal, against any of the Sheriff’s deputies at the Madison Parish
Detention Center alleging physical abuse and/or a beating. If so, please
state:
a.
The names of the inmates;
b.
The names of the sheriff’s deputies complained of;
c.
Detailed allegation made against the sheriff’s deputies;
d.
Whether any of the inmates filed a lawsuit against the
Madison Parish Detention Center and the disposition
thereof;
e.
Whether or not criminal charges were filed against the
deputies involved.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that this request is overly
burdensome, irrelevant and seeks information that is not reasonably
thought to lead to discoverable material. Defendants also submit that such
records are public records and as such, the plaintiff has equal access to
such records as defendants.

Resolution:

The court finds that the requested information is relevant to plaintiff’s claims that

Sheriff Cox had a policy and/or custom to inadequately investigate complaints of officer
misconduct that resulted in a climate that permitted or supported officer misconduct. See Compl.
Defendants further contend that it would be overly burdensome to respond to the interrogatory.
However, if defendants do not have a separate repository apart from each inmate’s individual file
to track complaints of physical abuse and/or beatings made against individual officers, then that
policy, in and of itself, may support plaintiff’s claim. In any event, if, as defendants contend, the
sole source of this information is each inmate’s prison file, and it is too burdensome for them to
cull the requested information therefrom, then defendants may query the MPDC inmate
population via questionnaire to obtain the necessary information. In addition, or alternatively,
defendants may obtain written consent from the inmates to allow plaintiff’s counsel to review

5

their inmate files. Regardless, defendants’ objections are overruled, and they shall respond, as
provided herein, within the next 28 days from the date of this order.
b)

Requests for Production

Prod. Req. No. 2:

Please provide a certified copy of any policies of insurance which
provide coverage for the incident and liability alleged in this case.

Response:

Defendants submit that the Sheriff is self-insured. The search for excess
policies is being conducted.

Resolution:

In their opposition memorandum, defendants further represented that they had

located the requested information and provided it to plaintiff’s counsel. Thus, the instant request
is moot.
Prod. Req. No. 3:

Please provide a certified copy of the entire personnel files of Lt. Robert
Sims and Deputy Wendell Hughes.

Response:

Defendants object to this request as irrelevant and seeking information
not reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible
evidence. Subject to that objection, see attached POST Certification
certificates for Lt. Sims and Deputy Hughes.

Resolution:

Defendants argue in their memorandum that personal information such as social

security numbers and enrollment in pension and retirement benefits plans is irrelevant. The court
disagrees. Income and benefit information may be relevant to the issue of damages. Defendants
may redact the social security numbers. Otherwise, within the next 14 days from the date of this
order, defendants shall produce the requested files, in full.

Prod. Req. No. 4:

Please produce copies of Mark Griffin’s medical records kept and
maintained on the premises of the Detention Center including all nursing
chart notes; evaluations; assessments and treatment of the plaintiff.
6

Defendants object to this request as irrelevant and seeking information
not reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible
evidence. Subject to that objection, but without waiving same, see
attached medical documents. Defendants have also forwarded a HIPAA
request to plaintiff in order to obtain his medical records from EA
Conway Hospital. The defendants will forward those record when
received.

Response:

Resolution:

In their opposition, defendants maintain that they provided plaintiff with a copy of

his medical records. Accordingly, the instant request is moot.

Prod. Req. No. 5:

Please produce all medical records and bills you obtained from an
outside medical facility, physicians and/or nurses relating to the
treatment of Mark Griffin resulting from the injuries complained of in
this case.

Response:

See response to Request for Production No. 4.

Resolution:

Defendants represent that they have produced the medical records that they have

in their possession. Within 7 days from the date of this order, defendants shall supplement their
response to produce any bills that they received from an outside medical center relating to
plaintiff, or otherwise state that they have received none. In addition, defendants have agreed to
obtain and forward medical records from outside providers as soon as plaintiff executes and
returns a medical release authorization.

Prod. Req. No. 7:

Please produce a copy of the Detention Center surveillance tape which
recorded the beating of Mark Griffin before, during and after the
occurrence.

Response:

See response to Interrogatory No. 3.

Resolution:

Defendants maintain that there is no surveillance of any altercation with Mark

Griffin, and that they cannot produce something that does not exist. The court agrees. However,
7

to the extent a video of the altercation does exist, defendants are ordered to produce it.

Prod. Req. No. 8:

Please produce the entire investigatory file of any and all employees,
inmates, and sheriff’s deputies, including but not limited to Lt. Sims,
Deputy Hughes regarding the beating of Mark Griffin which is the
subject of this litigation.

Response:

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague, overly
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to that objection, but without waiving
same, see defendants’ answer to Request for Production No. 3.

Resolution:

Defendants state that they have produced all of the investigative reports in their

possession. To the extent that any individual files of any inmate or deputy contain information
regarding the beating of Mark Griffin that has not already been produced, defendants are required
to produce it within 14 days from the date of this order.

Prod. Req. No. 9:

Produce all records related to the previous investigations and allegations
of inmates beating and abuse prior to, during and after Mark Griffin’s
beating at Madison Parish Detention Center.

Response:

Defendants object on the grounds that this request is vague, irrelevant
and seeks documents not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence. Further, the defendants deny that Mark Griffin was beaten by
defendants.

Resolution:

Defendants contend primarily that the request is over broad because they would be

required to go through thousands of inmate records. The court finds that the requested
information is relevant. To alleviate defendants’ concerns, however, defendants may poll, by
written questionnaire, the existing inmates to see if they have suffered beatings at the Madison
Parish Detention Center for the years from 2011-2014. Within 28 days from the date of this
order, defendants shall provide plaintiffs with the names of any inmates who have relevant

8

information, and who wish to communicate with plaintiffs’ counsel. Within this same period,
defendants also shall provide plaintiffs with the names of any inmates who were present at the
facility from 2011-2013, but who have been transferred or released, so plaintiffs may contact
them on their own, if they desire.
c.

Fees, Costs, and/or Expenses
The court generally must award reasonable expenses to the prevailing party on a motion

to compel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). The rule authorizes exceptions, however, for nondisclosures and responses that were substantially justified, or other circumstances that make an
award unjust. Id. Moreover, when, as here, a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in
part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses associated with the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(5)(C).
Because of the mixed relief obtained by movant, the court is not inclined to assess costs,
expenses, and/or fees in this instance.
Conclusion
For the above-assigned reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to compel discovery [doc. # 21] filed by plaintiff Mark
Griffin is GRANTED IN PART only to the extent specified in the body of the decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion [doc. # 21], including the request for fees,
expenses, and/or costs, otherwise is DENIED.
In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 4th day of August 2014.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9