Pearson v. Gittemeier et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Jeremy Pearson's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 71 ) is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall serve answers and objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories no later than December 6, 2021. Failure to do so will constitute a waiver of Defendants' right to object to the same. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall individually serve responses and objections to Plaintiff's First Requests for Produc tion of Documents no later than November 24, 2021 or otherwise amend by that time Defendant MDOC's Objections and Responses to reflect that they constitute the objections and responses of all defendants. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 71 ) is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 11/17/2021. (TMT)

Case: 2:19-cv-00041-RLW Doc. #: 84 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 636

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JEREMY BRADLEY PEARSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK GITTEMEIER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:19-CV-0041 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jeremy Pearson’s Motion to Compel Discovery
from Defendants. (ECF No. 71). Defendants oppose the Motion and it is fully briefed. For the
reasons below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion in part.
Background
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Moberly Correctional Center in Moberly, Missouri, brings this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Missouri Department of Corrections and several prison
officials. (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint is comprised of nine counts
stemming from an alleged incident in which Defendant Gittemeier sprayed mace on Plaintiff and
Defendant Peepers failed to intervene. Id. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive
damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Id.
Legal Standard
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes motions to compel discovery.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move

Case: 2:19-cv-00041-RLW Doc. #: 84 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 637

for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.”). Rule 26 governs the scope of discovery in
federal matters:
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the
scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery
in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is extremely broad.” SI03, Inc. v. Musclegen
Rsch., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-274 RLW, 2020 WL 6544261, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 6, 2020) (citation
omitted). “Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper
litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his
possession.” Id. (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate how and when the parties may engage in
discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37. Federal Rule 33 governs the use of interrogatories in civil
cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Under Rule 33, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25
written interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The responding party must serve its answer and
objections within 30 days after being served unless the parties stipulate or the Court orders
otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Rule 34 governs requests for production of documents. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 34. As with interrogatories, the responding party must serve its responses and objections
within 30 days absent stipulation by the parties or an order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(A).

2

Case: 2:19-cv-00041-RLW Doc. #: 84 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 638

Discussion
Plaintiff served his first written discovery requests on Defendants on May 20, 2021. (ECF
No. 71). Defendants’ answers and responses were due no later than June 21, 2021. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33 and 34. Plaintiff filed the present motion on September 14, 2021. (ECF No. 71). Fourteen
days later, Defendant Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) served its Objections and
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. (ECF No. 77-1). Defendants
did not answer Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (ECF No. 76).
Defendants believe the Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel because
Defendants have produced “a significant amount of discovery” and continue to “work diligently”
to complete Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. (ECF No. 76, p. 4). Plaintiff contends, on the
other hand, that no defendant has answered Plaintiff’s interrogatories and only MDOC has
responded to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents. (ECF No. 77). In their
Surresponse, Defendants state that Plaintiff agreed to an initial extension of time and that “[n]o
subsequent date was ever proposed.” (ECF No. 83). Defendants further argue that MDOC’s
objections and responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents were meant to serve
as objections and responses for all defendants. (ECF No. 82). Lastly, Defendants state that Plaintiff
has not satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 3.04. (ECF No. 83).
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Local
Rule 3.04. In his Motion, Plaintiff states that counsel for the parties discussed the need for a
protective order via telephone on June 30, 2021. (ECF No. 71). In his Reply, Plaintiff further
explains that counsel for the parties conferred via telephone on October 15, 2021 to discuss the
disputes at issue in the present motion. (ECF No. 77). While such discussions should ordinarily

3

Case: 2:19-cv-00041-RLW Doc. #: 84 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 639

precede the filing of a motion to compel, an order requiring Plaintiff to amend and refile his motion
at this stage would unnecessarily waste time and resources for all involved.
As to the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants admit they have not responded to
Plaintiff’s interrogatories, stating merely that “[d]efense counsel continues to work on Plaintiff’s
first set of interrogatories and has been in contact with all named Defendants.” (ECF No. 76, pp.
2-3). Even if Plaintiff agreed to an initial extension of time, Defendants have not adequately
explained why—nearly six months after being served with Plaintiff’s interrogatories—they still
have not provided answers and objections. For these reasons, Defendants shall serve their answers
and objections to all outstanding interrogatories by December 6, 2021.
The Court will not address at this time the sufficiency of Defendants’ Objections and
Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. Nothing in this Order,
however, prohibits Plaintiff from seeking such review in the future. In the meantime, the parties
are strongly encouraged to resolve any remaining disputes regarding Defendants’ Objections and
Responses.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court will order Defendants to serve answers and objections to
Plaintiff’s outstanding interrogatories no later than December 6, 2021. The Court will further
require Defendants to serve their responses and objections to Plaintiff’s outstanding requests for
production of documents by November 24, 2021 or otherwise amend Defendant MDOC’s
Objections and Responses to reflect that they constitute the objections and responses of all
defendants.

4

Case: 2:19-cv-00041-RLW Doc. #: 84 Filed: 11/17/21 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 640

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Jeremy Pearson’s Motion to Compel Discovery
(ECF No. 71) is GRANTED in part. Defendants shall serve answers and objections to Plaintiff’s
First Set of Interrogatories no later than December 6, 2021. Failure to do so will constitute a waiver
of Defendants’ right to object to the same.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall individually serve responses and
objections to Plaintiff’s First Requests for Production of Documents no later than November 24,
2021 or otherwise amend by that time Defendant MDOC’s Objections and Responses to reflect
that they constitute the objections and responses of all defendants.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 71)
is DENIED in all other respects.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of November, 2021.

5