CONDON v. BOUFFARD et al

Filing 94

ORDER granting in part 67 Motion to Amend Discovery Order; denying 69 Motion for Conference of Counsel; granting in part 74 Motion for Relief; granting 74 Motion to Extend Time; denying 77 Motion for Order. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JOHN JAY CONDON,
Plaintiff
v.
RODNEY BOUFFARD, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-00372-JAW

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Amend Discovery Order
(ECF No. 67), Plaintiff’s Motion for Conference (ECF No. 69), Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (ECF No. 74), and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Order to Permit Correspondence with Prisoners. (ECF No. 77.)
1. Motion to Amend Discovery Order
Defendant seeks relief from the Court’s order that requires Defendant to inform
Plaintiff “whether, between October 28, 2010, and October 28, 2014 (the date on which
Plaintiff was transferred to the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution), any maximum security
inmates were held in administrative segregation in the Special Management Unit of the
‘supermax’ building for more than 30 consecutive days pending the results of an investigation
into a charge of threatening staff (i.e., in the absence of a formal disciplinary charge or
pending the determination of a formal disciplinary charge), and, if so, the number of inmates
and the duration of each inmate’s total consecutive period of segregated confinement,
including, where applicable, consecutive periods of disciplinary segregation;” and to provide

Plaintiff “for the period between October 28, 2010, and October 28, 2014, with the number
of maximum security inmates who were found guilty on a disciplinary charge of threatening
staff, and the total amount of time each inmate spent in segregated confinement as a
consequence of the charge.” (Order on Discovery Issues, ECF No. 66.)
Through the motion, Defendants represent that an exploration of access to and the
availability of the documents revealed that production of the information would be unduly
burdensome. (Motion, ECF No. 67.) Defendants contend that because the prison records
prior to 2014 are not available through a computer search, and given the number disciplinary
cases each year in the prison, including the number of prisoners who have been placed in
administrative segregation for various reasons, to require Defendants to review of all of the
records would be unreasonable. Defendants ask the Court to amend the discovery order to
require Defendants to review a random sample of disciplinary files for each year from October
28, 2010 through October 28, 2014, and to provide Plaintiff with certain information
following the review.
Based on Defendants’ representations, the Court concludes that under the
circumstances, the current scope of the discovery order would impose an unreasonable burden
on Defendants. An amendment to the discovery order is thus appropriate. The Court,
therefore, grants in part Defendants’ motion to amend the discovery order. (ECF No. 67.)
The Court orders Defendants, for each year identified in the discovery order, to review
files of 30 prisoners placed in segregation, which files are to be selected randomly, and to
inform Plaintiff, without providing Plaintiff with the prisoners’ personal identifying
information, (a) whether each prisoner was placed in the Special Management Unit in
2

accordance with the Administrative Segregation Policy or solely as a disciplinary sanction;
(b) the reason each prisoner was placed in segregation; (c) whether each prisoner was charged
with the disciplinary infraction of threatening and the result of the charge; (d) for any prisoner
found guilty of the charge, the length of the disciplinary sanction; and (e) the total time each
prisoner was in segregation. Defendants shall produce the information within 21 days of the
date of this order.
If upon review of the information, Plaintiff believes that additional relevant
information should reasonably be produced, Plaintiff can request the additional information
by way of motion to the Court. If Plaintiff were to file such a motion, the Court would
determine whether Defendants should be required to produce the information.
2. Motion for Conference
Plaintiff asks the Court to convene a telephonic conference to discuss Plaintiff’s
request for the identity of certain prisoners who were placed in the Administrative Control
Unit (ACU) of the prison. (Motion, ECF No. 69.) Given the confidential nature of the
information requested, and given that, according to Defendants, no prisoners were placed in
the ACU until after Plaintiff’s transfer from the Maine State Prison, on the current record, the
Court finds no relevance to the information. The Court, therefore, denies the motion.
3. Motion for Relief Pursuant to Rule 56(d)
Plaintiff requests that the Court permit further discovery before the Court rules on
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Motion, ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff has filed a
response to the motion for summary judgment.

3

The Court grants in part Plaintiff’s request. The Court will defer consideration of the
motion for summary judgment to permit the production by Defendants of the information
outlined in section number 1 of this order (order on Motion to Amend Discovery Order) and
to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to supplement his response to the motion for summary
judgment upon receipt of the information. If Plaintiff intends to supplement his response to
the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff shall file the supplemental response within 21
days of Defendants’ production of the information.1
4. Motion for Order to Permit Correspondence with Prisoners
Plaintiff asks the Court to authorize correspondence between him and certain other
prisoners, including prisoners located in correctional facilities outside Maine. (Motion, ECF
No. 77.) Outside the context of a case in which prison policies or prison conditions have been
demonstrated to violate the constitution, the Court ordinarily does not intervene in the
administrative management of prisons. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493, 511 (2011); O’Lone v.
Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548 (1979);
Poirier v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 558 F.3d 92, 96 (1st Cir. 2009). The Court discerns no basis
to support Plaintiff’s request for intervention in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s motion.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 4th day of June, 2018.
1

Defendants shall notify the Court when they produce the information to Plaintiff so that the Court is aware
of the deadline for Plaintiff’s supplemental filing.
4