Hymes v. St. Charles County Jail

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment or Sanctions (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 45) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, i n part. Plaintiffs motion to compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 directed to Dr. Loynd (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 directed to Defendants Crawford and Warren, Interrogatory No. 3 to Defendant McKee and Interrogatory No. 2 to Defendant Post is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shirley P. Mensah on 3/26/15. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRUCE HYMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. WARREN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-485-SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Bruce Hymes’ Motion to Compel
answers to interrogatories and disclosure (Doc. No. 45) and Motion for Entry of
Default Judgment or Sanctions against Defendants Warren, Strickland, McKee,
Post, Crawford, and Loynd (collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”). (Doc.
No. 46). In essence, Plaintiff contends he is entitled to the entry of default judgment
or sanctions because Defendants were either late in serving disclosures or failed to
serve disclosures required under the Case Management Order. Plaintiff further
contends sanctions and/or default judgment are warranted because Defendants’
responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories were incomplete; and/or Defendants’
objections were not well taken. In support of his motions, Plaintiff submitted
Defendants’ discovery responses and correspondence between Plaintiff and defense
counsel. After reviewing the written submissions of the parties, including

Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s motions, I find that Plaintiff’s motion to compel
should be granted, in part, and denied, in part, for the reasons set out below.
However, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that entry of a default judgment or
sanctions are warranted, Plaintiff’s motion for default or sanctions will be denied.
Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order, Defendants were required
to make certain disclosures to Plaintiff on or before December 30, 2014. Defendants
mailed the disclosures to Plaintiff and counsel for Dr. Loynd on December 30, 2014.
See Doc. No. 50-1. Defendant Loynd mailed his initial disclosure to Plaintiff on
January 5, 2015, and mailed supplemental disclosures on February 1, 2015, March 3,
2015, and March 4, 2015. See Doc. Nos. 49-1 through 49-4. The record before the
Court makes clear that, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary,
Defendants did not fail to make the disclosures required by the Case Management
Order. Defendant’s Loynd’s disclosures were not timely served; but, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the delayed disclosures. The
disclosures of the remaining defendants were timely served. As such, Plaintiff’s
contention that Defendants should be sanctioned for failing to make the disclosure
required under the Case Management Order is without merit.
Plaintiff also appears to seek either sanctions or an order compelling
responses to interrogatories he directed to Defendants in October 2014. Plaintiff
2

served Defendants Loynd, Crawford, Warren, McKee, and Post with Plaintiff’s First
Interrogatories on or about October 25, 2014. Defendants filed timely objections and
responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Because Defendants timely responded to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests and are not in default of any previously imposed order
compelling discovery responses, the Court finds no basis for issuing sanctions
against Defendants. The Court will instead consider Plaintiff’s motion to compel
responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
A. Interrogatories Directed to Dr. Loynd
With respect to Dr. Loynd, Interrogatory numbers 3 and 4 asked Dr. Loynd to
describe the care he provided to Plaintiff during or after April 2012 in response to
Plaintiff’s complaints of vision and hearing loss. See Doc. No. 46-1, at p. 2.
Although Dr. Loynd objected that each interrogatory was overly broad and vague,
he nevertheless directed Plaintiff to the medical records. As Dr. Loynd correctly
noted in his response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel, Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure permits him to produce medical records in lieu of a written response
to the interrogatory. In the absence of any evidence that the medical records fail to
address the requested information, Dr. Loynd has satisfied the requests in
interrogatories 3 and 4. As such, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to
interrogatory numbers 3 and 4 will be denied.
3

B. Interrogatories Directed To Defendants Crawford, Warren, McKee,
and Post
In the interrogatories directed to Defendants Crawford (Interrog. No. 6),
Warren (Interrog. No. 6), McKee (Interrog. No. 3) and Post (Interrog. No. 2),
Plaintiff asked whether, during the relevant time frame, each Defendant knew Debra
Hymes and/or her relationship to Plaintiff. Defendants objected to this interrogatory
on grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and irrelevant to the issues in the case.
However, as Plaintiff correctly notes in his motion, Defendants’ knowledge of his
relationship to Debra Hymes is central to the facts alleged in his Complaint. In
addition, the interrogatory is simply worded and Defendants have failed to articulate
any legitimate basis for finding it vague or ambiguous. As such, Defendants’
objections will be overruled and Defendants Crawford (Interrog. No. 6), Warren
(Interrog. No. 6), McKee (Interrog. No. 3) and Post (Interrog. No. 2), will be
required to respond.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment or Sanctions (Doc. No. 46) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No.
45) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 directed to Dr. Loynd (Doc. No. 45) is
4

DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 6 directed
to Defendants Crawford and Warren, Interrogatory No. 3 to Defendant McKee and
Interrogatory No. 2 to Defendant Post is GRANTED.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5