GOGUEN v. GILBLAIR et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying 36 Objection to 35 Order on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and Order on Motion for Reconsideration. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT GOGUEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER GILBLAIR, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:12-cv-00048-JAW
ORDER ON OBJECTION TO ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES
Robert Goguen, a prisoner at the Somerset County Jail, objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s discovery Orders.
The Court concludes that the Orders are
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and overrules his objections.
I.
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2011, Robert Goguen, a detainee at the Somerset County Jail,
filed a complaint in Somerset County Superior Court for the state of Maine against
five Defendants, each affiliated with the Jail as a corrections officer or jail
administrator. Notice of Removal Attach. 1 Compl. (ECF No. 1). On February 6,
2012, the Defendants removed the case to this Court. Notice of Removal (ECF No.
1). On May 17, 2012, after obtaining leave of Court, Mr. Goguen filed what he
called a second amended complaint. Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 24).
On February 23, 2012, the Court issued a standard scheduling order that
among other things set the maximum number of interrogatories at thirty per
opposing party. Scheduling Order at 1 (ECF No. 9). On June 21, 2012, Mr. Goguen
moved to amend the Scheduling Order to be exempted from the thirty interrogatory
limit on the ground that as a prisoner he will not be able to take depositions and
therefore is limited in the means to obtain information. Mot. to Am. Scheduling
Order at 1 (ECF No. 28).
More specifically, he asked the Court to require the
Defendants to more completely answer interrogatories 6, 8, 9 and 10. Id. at 1-2.
Mr. Goguen explained that the Defendants had objected to responding to these
interrogatories for each of the Defendants because to do so would exceed the thirty
interrogatory limit in the Scheduling Order.
Id. at 2-3.
Hence, his request to
increase the Scheduling Order’s interrogatory limit.
In a thoughtful Order, the Magistrate Judge granted his motion in part and
required individual responses (with some limitations) to two of the interrogatories,
but she denied his motion as regards the two remaining interrogatories. Order Re:
Disc. Disputes (ECF No. 35) (Disc. Order). Specifically, as regards interrogatory 9,
which asked for information about the individual Defendants’ employment over the
last ten years, the Magistrate Judge required the Defendants to respond but only
for the period of their employment at the Somerset County Jail. Id. at 6.
The
Magistrate
Judge
also
addressed
Mr.
Goguen’s
Motion
for
Reconsideration of her previous order, denying his motion to compel discovery. Id.
at 7. This bears a word of explanation. On April 30, 2012, Mr. Goguen filed a
motion to compel discovery. Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc. (ECF No. 22). On May 11,
2012, the Defendants responded, contending that they had already responded to his
discovery requests and that some of the demanded information (particularly
2
information relating to other inmates) was not discoverable. Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s
Mot. to Compel Disc. (ECF No. 23). On May 21, 2012, Mr. Goguen replied. Pl.’s
Counter to Defs.’ Opp’n to Compel Disc. (ECF No. 25).
On May 22, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge denied the motion to compel, stating that “there is no basis for
this motion to compel; the defendants have provided relevant discovery and
plaintiff's remaining demands do not request court intervention at this time.”
Order (ECF No. 26).
On July 13, 2012, Mr. Goguen filed a motion for
reconsideration of the May 22, 2012 Order, declining to compel discovery. Pl.’s Mot.
for Recons. to Compel Disc. (ECF No. 30).
In her August 6, 2012 Order, the
Magistrate Judge rejected the motion for reconsideration, noting that she has “no
reason to reconsider that order beyond [her] specific orders on the motion to amend
scheduling order and therefore the motion for reconsideration is denied as untimely
because the order on the motion to compel was entered well over a month prior to
the motion for reconsideration.” Disc. Order at 7.
Not satisfied, Mr. Goguen objected to parts of the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
Objections to Order Re: Disc. Disputes (ECF No. 36). First, he objects because he
contends the Defendants’ objections to his First Request for Production of
Documents and Interrogatories were untimely. Id. at 1. Next, he objects to the
ruling on Interrogatory 9, stating that since the Somerset County Jail has been
open only since around October, 2008, it is too restrictive to limit the interval
included in the Defendants’ responses to the period the Somerset County Jail has
been open. Id. Third, he objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion to
3
reconsider her earlier decision denying his motion to compel discovery. Id. at 2. He
claims that contrary to the Defendants’ earlier representations, they have failed to
respond to some of the requests. Id. at 3. Finally, he urges the Court to compel the
production of videotapes or audio surveillance, which he contends will corroborate
his version of events. Id. at 4.
The Defendants responded. Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Objections to Order: Re: Disc.
Disputes (ECF No. 37) (Defs.’ Opp’n). First, they point out that the only objection
Mr. Goguen has made to the Magistrate Judge’s Order is to her interrogatory nine
time restriction.
Id. at 1-2.
Regarding the motion for reconsideration, the
Defendants say it is untimely, the requests are extremely broad, and although the
Defendants have supplied some information, they have objected to other disclosures
on the grounds that “this information is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not
subject to public disclosure, and not relevant to claims or defenses at issue in this
lawsuit.” Id. at 3. Also, they assert that some of the information may be protected
by 30-A M.R.S. § 503. Id. Finally, as regards the videos and audio recordings, the
Defendants reiterate that they “have already asserted that they do not have
materials that are responsive to these requests.” Id. at 3.
II.
DISCUSSION
The legal standard for evaluating an objection to a magistrate judge’s
decision on a non-dispositive matter is whether the order is “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
4
Although Mr. Goguen would undoubtedly like to obtain detailed information
about the employment histories of the corrections officers he has sued, including
their disciplinary records, the civil rules do not require that simply because
someone is sued, a defendant relinquishes all privacy rights. Before being required
to reveal details about their employment histories, the rules mandate that the
requested information must be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the Magistrate Judge allowed
Mr. Goguen to obtain some, but not all the information he has sought, and she
provided a means to evaluate whether any disciplinary records are relevant to Mr.
Goguen’s allegations. Disc. Order at 6. The Magistrate Judge’s Order is well within
her discretion and is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
As regards Mr. Goguen’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the motion is untimely. The Magistrate Judge issued her
Order on Mr. Goguen’s Motion for Reconsideration on May 22, 2012. Under Local
Rule 7(g), a motion for reconsideration must be filed “within 14 days from the date
of the order unless the party seeking a reconsideration shows cause for not filing
within that time.”
D. ME. LOC. R. 7(g).
Mr. Goguen filed this motion for
reconsideration on July 13, 2012, approximately seven weeks after the date of the
Order and did not provide any cause for the late filing. The failure to comply with
the time periods in the Local Rule is justification enough for the denial of the
motion for reconsideration. Second, the standard for reconsideration is that the
order “was based on a manifest error of fact or law.” Id. Mr. Goguen has not
5
demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge’s May 22, 2012 Order was based on an
manifest error of fact or law.
Furthermore, the subject of the motion for
reconsideration is intertwined to a large extent with the subject of the motion to
amend scheduling order and the Magistrate Judge accorded Mr. Goguen some relief
in that aspect of his discovery dispute with the Defendants. In short, there is no
basis for the Court to conclude that the Magistrate Judge committed legal error in
denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
Finally, as regards Mr. Goguen’s demand that the Defendants produce any
video or audio recordings, the Defendants have represented that they do not have
“materials that are responsive to these requests.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 3. The Court
cannot require the Defendants to produce something they do not have.
III.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Robert Goguen’s Objections to Order Re: Discovery
Disputes (ECF No. 36).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of October, 2012
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?