Prison Legal News v. Bezotte et al

Filing 221

ORDER Denying 123 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 34 Entry on Land for Expert and Counsel. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PRISON LEGAL NEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-CV-13460
Hon. Denise Page Hood

LIVINGSTON COUNTY SHERIFF BOB
BEZOTTE and LIVINGSTON COUNTY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 34
ENTRY ON LAND FOR EXPERT AND COUNSEL [#123]
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Rule 34 Entry on
Land for Expert and Counsel. [Docket No. 123, filed January 10, 2014]
Defendants filed a Response to this Motion on January 27, 2014, [Docket
No. 131], to which Plaintiff filed a Reply. [Docket No. 145, filed February
4, 2014] In its Motion, Plaintiff moves the Court to grant “its lawyers and
students” the authority to review the mailroom, the cell areas, and the law
library of the Livingston County Jail. Plaintiff also seeks permission to
review the processing of the mail at the jail and to interview “detainees
confined at the jail” to discuss “issues pertaining to this litigation.”
Specifically, in its Second Amended Motion for Entry on Land [Docket No.
123, Exhibit 6], Plaintiff stated:
1

THE AREAS TO
FOLLOWING.

REVIEW

ARE

THE

1. The area where the mail from the United States
Post Office is brought into the jail and
processed; where it is taken once processed by
mailroom staff; where it is held until it is
distributed to the prisoners; where mail is held
that is being considered for non-delivery or has
been determined to be non-deliverable mail;
and where the notice of mail rejections are kept;
and where the rejected materials is kept until a
hearing is held.
2. Plaintiff’s staff will be present to review the
processing of United States Post Office mail
addressed to those at the Jail, which will
include how the mail is separated by mailing
staff; what is done with each piece of mail
addressed to those confined; the processing of
any mail determined to violate jail security or
good order; the process of the mail being
distributed to each cell; how mail being
considered for rejection is processed; where
these rejection slips are held; where and how
rejection notices hearings are held.
3. Plaintiff’s staff will also want to enter at least
10 jail cells, selected at random, to observe the
size and configuration of the each cell and the
items contained in each cell.
4. Plaintiff’s staff will also want to enter the area
of the jail where books and magazines are kept,
including where legal materials are kept, to
observe and determine what are kept in these
areas and how those confined obtain access to
these items.

2

5. Plaintiff’s staff will also want to talk to eat least
20 separate detainees, some of those being held
pending trial land some of those convicted, as
to issues involved in this litigation.
6. Plaintiff’s staff will also want to inspect the
inmate’s property locker for those presently
confined at the jail, any records as to what was
placed in these lockers, and any records from
two years prior to the litigation up through
present showing what items were placed in
lockers of those previously confined at the jail
and any documents reflecting what those
released from the jail signed for as to what was
kept in their inmate’s locker.
[Id.] Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendants for not abiding by its
request.
In their Response, Defendants request that this Court deny Plaintiff’s
Motion and enter a protective order.

Defendants contends that Plaintiff’s

request to observe the jail’s mail procedure should be denied because the
alleged burden is outweighed by any benefit, the information is obtainable
from another source that is more convenient and less burdensome, and the
physical aspects of the jail's mailroom and storage facilities are irrelevant to
Plaintiff’s claims. As to Plaintiff’s request that it be allowed to inspect the
size and configuration of the jail cells and property lockers, Defendants
argue that the request should be denied because the information Plaintiff
seeks is irrelevant to this lawsuit.

Defendants also request reasonable
3

attorney fees as a sanction for having to respond to a motion it deems not in
compliance with Federal Rule 26(g).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 states that, “A party may serve on
any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) . . . to permit entry
onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the
responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey,
photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or
operation on it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2). “In a civil case, . . . a party is
entitled as a general matter to discovery of any information sought if it
appears ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 825-26 (1996) (quoting
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1)). The district court, however, has the power to
enter protective orders limiting discovery as the interests of justice require.
See Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(c) (stating that “[t[he court may, for good cause,
issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.”).
Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court allow it to visit the Livingston
County Jail to review the mailroom, the cell areas, and the law library of the
Livingston County Jail, requests permission to review the processing of the
mail at the jail, and also permission to interview “detainees confined at the
4

jail” to discuss “issues pertaining to this litigation.” Plaintiff has failed to
cite to any cases in which a Court has allowed attorneys who are not seeking
to give detainees legal advice or represent them in some way have access to
detainees while incarcerated to further their own litigious goals. As stated in
this Court’s March 29, 2013, Order, PLN does not have a right to access
inmates in order to vindicate its own constitutional grievances. See Haitian
Refugee Center v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1513-14 (11th Cir. 1992)
(reasoning that “[t]he Constitution . . . does not require the Government to
assist the holder of a constitutional right in the exercise of that right” and
case law does not support “the conclusion that the Government infringes
associational freedom when it denies access to those whom it lawfully
detains”); Ukrainian-American Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Baker, 893 F.2d 1374,
1382 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reasoning that “[t]o admit everyone who would like
to advise the [detainee], each in accordance with his own view of the good
life, and to communicate their offers of assistance would impose a
substantial burden upon the Government.”).
Plaintiff again seems to seek to inspect the mailroom and storage
facilities, review the mail procedures, review the jail cells, and speak with
inmates to assert its own rights and build its own case. Plaintiff is a
publication and is not in the business of informing inmates of their legal
5

rights to provide legal representation such that is should have the same level
of access to inmates as attorneys and legal aid organizations. The Court
finds no right that “guarantees [Plaintiff] governmental assistance in
pursuing [its] political objective.” Ukrainian-American Bar, 893 F.2d at
1380.

This Court is satisfied that, as Plaintiff noted, this is indeed a

discovery issue but “rule 34 [does not] permit[] blanket discovery upon [a]
bare skeletal request when confronted with an objection.” Belcher v. Bassett
Furniture Indus., Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 908 (4th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff has failed
to show how the information it seeks by entering the jail is relevant to its
constitutional claims at this time or that access to information cannot be
obtained by other means.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Rule 34 Entry on
Land for Expert and Counsel [Docket No. 123, filed January 10, 2014] is
DENIED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: April 14, 2015

6

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on April 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

7