Palmer v. Prince George's Community College

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 10/9/2014. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

CHRISTOPHER PALMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE'S COMMUNITY
COLLEGE
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
******

Civil Action No.: RWT-14-0897

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appropriate Relief and Notice of Service (the
“Motion”) (ECF No. 18) and the opposition thereto (ECF No. 20). On October 9, 2014, the
Court held a telephone hearing with Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. For the reasons
presented below, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part and DENIES the Motion in part.
I.

Background
On August 20, 2014, Defendant propounded twelve interrogatories to Plaintiff and served

its notice to take Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff objected to these interrogatories and the
deposition. He noted that while he was not sure whether he was legally required to comply, he
felt the requests were invasive and irrelevant. In an attempt to resolve the issues, the Court
treated the Motion as one for a Protective Order. The parties were advised of the proper method
to pursue a motion for the future.

II.

Discussion
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Under our Local Rules, “[i]ndividuals representing

themselves are responsible for performing all duties imposed upon counsel by these Rules and all
other applicable federal rules of procedure.” D. Md. Loc. R. 101(1)(a). Under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure,
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. . . . 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).
The Court did not receive copies of Defendant’s interrogatories. During the hearing,
Plaintiff read the interrogatories aloud so the Court could consider his Motion. The Court found
that Defendant’s interrogatories numbered 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-12 “appear[] reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and that Plaintiff must reply to these discovery
requests, as written. Plaintiff must reply to Defendant’s fifth interrogatory insofar as it requests
information regarding any mental health related treatment in the last five years. Plaintiff is not
required to reply to Defendant’s seventh interrogatory at this time, but will be required to provide
such information both to Defendant and the Court in accordance with the Court’s directions
regarding any proposed pre-trial order. Finally, Plaintiff is required to reply to Defendant’s ninth
interrogatory insofar as it requires all employment related information from the year 2002 to the
present date. Plaintiff shall provide written answers to interrogatories, under oath, on or before
October 16, 2014.

2

The Court finds that Defendant’s notice of deposition to Plaintiff is proper and that
Plaintiff must submit to a deposition that is consistent with the federal and local rules. The Court
orders the deposition to occur on November 4th, 2014, at 10 a.m. Discovery is otherwise closed.
The deadline for dispositive motions is now December 4, 2014.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I hold that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part.

October 9, 2014

/s/
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge

CBD/sdh

3