Paige v. Murry et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 78 MOTION for Extension of: time to repond to Motion for Summary Judgment an additional 45 days filed by Plaintiff Lacey Kurt Paige motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for an Extens ion of Time (#78) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until February 8, 2014 to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion of Clarification (#79) is held i n abeyance. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that defendants shall respond to plaintiff's Motion of Clarification (#79) as described in the memorandum above no later than November 25, 2013. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/14/13. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JERRY MURRAY, et al.
Case No. 1:12-cv-40 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the Court are two motions by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
(#78) seeks additional time in which to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
due to his limited library access and funds. That motion will be granted.
Plaintiff’s Motion of Clarification (#79) is a response to the Court’s Order of October 29,
2013 (#77). That Order denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s denial of his request
to compel “documents or logbooks that indicate what officers were assigned and worked in
Housing Unit 2 at SECC” from September 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011, including records
that indicate in what wing the officer worked. Defendants had already produced shift schedules
from September 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010. They cite safety and security reasons for not
producing further information, and they also state that the documents implicated are
“confidential, closed records pursuant to § 217.075(3) RSMo.” They also stated that the request
is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not sufficiently limited in time and scope. As articulated
in the Court’s October 29 Order,
Plaintiff alleges that, while housed in the administrative segregation unit
of SECC, a foul-smelling brown liquid began to seep into his cell at a rate of one
gallon per hour on October 9, 2010. Plaintiff complained to various officers, but
the leak was not fixed until November 10, 2010. The Court denied plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to that Request #2 because it was overbroad in time and
scope: the leak was fixed on November 10, 2010, and plaintiff offered no
explanation for why he needs information about officer assignments through
January 2011. Plaintiff did not explain why the shift schedules for September and
November were not sufficient.
Now plaintiff suggests that defendants improperly objected on attorneyclient privilege grounds, but defendants did not raise that objection to Request #2.
Plaintiff further requests reconsideration because the information he seeks “is
necessary to prove the state of mind of the defendants in that they ignored plaintiff
on a daily basis.” (#76 at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff goes on to state that he would accept
production of documents pertaining to the time period set forth in the Complaint.
Plaintiff did obtain shift schedules for September and November, so the Court
must infer that plaintiff wants to know to which wing each of the officers was
assigned for each shift. Again, now looking to plaintiff’s professed need for
information reflecting to which wing each officer was assigned for each shift,
plaintiff has not explained why he needs documents reflecting the specific
information he seeks. Plaintiff says he did not want to explain further his need for
the documents because he did not want “to expose” his “strategy” before the filing
of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff already knows the
identities of the officers to whom he complained because he named them as
defendants. The Court still does not understand how the requested information
would be likely to lead to admissible evidence going to the defendants’ state of
mind or any other matter pertinent to plaintiff’s case.
(Order, #77 at 2-3.) Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Clarification” in order to explain his need for
the requested documents. Plaintiff states that he wants to prove that the named defendants
worked in A-Wing during the time period between October 9 and November 12, 2010 because,
when assigned to housing unit 2, the named defendants would have been required to perform
certain job duties that would have required the defendants to see the allegedly deplorable
conditions of his cell. Further, he states that the logs would show whether the defendants had
reported work orders for other inmates’ cells, further reflecting their state of mind.
The Court will order the defendants to file a response to plaintiff’s motion. The
defendants shall explain whether there are other means of conveying the information he seeks
that do not implicate the security or other concerns they may have. To the extent defendants
have security concerns regarding sharing the requested information with plaintiff, defendants
shall explain how records of past specific job assignments in particular housing unit wings
implicate such security concerns going forward.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time (#78) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until February 8, 2014 to respond
to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion of Clarification (#79) is held in
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that defendants shall respond to plaintiff’s Motion of
Clarification (#79) as described in the memorandum above no later than November 25, 2013.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2013.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?