Edwards v. Villmer et al

Filing 205

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Order Release of PREA Risk Assessment (ECF No. 82 ), Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86 ), Motion for Pretrial Disclosures (ECF N o. 114 ), Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and Extension of Time (ECF No. 116 ), Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 123 ), Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 129 ), Motion for Leave of Court (ECF No. 137 ), Motion for Court Permission for Live Video Transmission (ECF No. 144 ), Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 145 ), Motion for Court Order for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 152 ), Edwards' Motion for Appointm ent of Counsel (ECF No. 157 ), Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Order Examination for Admissibility of Duplicates (ECF No. 164 ), Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 172 ), Motion for Clerk and Memorandum for Subpoenas (ECF No . 173 ), Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (ECF No. 189 ), and Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation (ECF No. 193 ) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Withdrawal to Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. No. 143 ) in Part, Withdrawal of Motion for Court Permission for Live Video Witnesses (Doc No. 144 ) as Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants' Response to Deposition to Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. No. 145 ) and Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants' Response to Opposition to Plaintiffs Letter to Confer (ECF No. 146 ) and Plaintiff's Request for Additional Discovery (ECF No. 146-1) (ECF No. 161 ) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on November 17, 2017. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LA WRENCE M EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,
V.

TOM VILLMER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV1077 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a number of motions pending before the Court. These
matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition.

I.

Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Order Release of PREA Risk
Assessment (ECF No. 82)

Plaintiff Lawrence Edwards ("Edwards") requests that this Court grant his motion to order
the release of PREA Risk Assessment documents.

Defendants objected to producing these

records because they are closed and confidential under the Missouri Department of Corrections
policy Dl-11.2 and are considered internal documents related to institutional security under Mo.
Rev. Stat. §217.075. (ECF No. 85). In addition, Defendants note that Edwards failed to make a
good faith attempt to resolve this discovery dispute before filing this Motion to Compel, as
required under E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04. The Court denies the Motion to Order Release of PREA Risk
Assessment. The Court holds that these records are closed and confidential. Likewise, the Court
denies the Motion because Edwards failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirement prior to filing
this motion.

II.

Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86)
1

Edwards moved this Court to order Defendants to produce documents in response to his
Request for Production of Documents and Edwards' Third Request for Production of Documents.
On April 28, 2017, Defendants sent their Response to Edwards' Request for Production of
Documents and Response to Edwards' Third Request for Production of Documents and
Discovery. (ECF No. 89). Edwards also did not attempt to resolve this dispute prior to filing his
Motion to Compel in violation of E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04. The Court denies the Motion to Compel
because it appears that Defendants have provided the discovery to Edwards and because Edwards
failed to comply with the mandatory meet and confer requirement.
III.

Edwards' Motion for Pretrial Disclosures (ECF No. 114)

Edwards states that Defendants objected to "monitored phones," "video footage," and
"crucial documents" as being privileged, closed, and confidential. Edwards claims that he should
receive this discovery to "establish the truth of a matter to be determined by the trier of fact."
(ECF No. 114 at 1). Edwards also objects to "any excerpts or exhibits used from the June 8, 2017
deposition conducted on him which is substantive evidence that was not subject to discovery ... "
[sic] (ECF No. 114 at 1). The Court denies the Motion for Pretrial Disclosures in full. Edwards
failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before filing this motion related to the parties' purported
discovery disputes.

Further, the Court holds that Edwards has not demonstrated that the

requested discovery is relevant and proportional to his needs in this case. Additionally, the Court
holds that Edwards' request that his deposition not be used against him is either premature or
improper. Defendants can use Edwards' deposition for purposes of summary judgment and the
Court will make a determination if it can be used at trial at a later date, if necessary.
IV.

Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and Extension of Time
(ECF No. 116)
2

Edwards asks this Court to compel Defendants to produce their Response to Plaintiffs
Fourth Final Request for Production of Documents (ECF No. 116 at 1). Edwards asserts that
Defendants' "delay of the 30-day discovery deadline" caused Edwards to need an extension of
time to review objections and confer with the Court. (Id.). Edwards claims that he has not
received the responsive documents.

(Id.).

The Court denies Edwards' Motion to Compel

because he failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before filing this motion. Edwards mailed the
meet and confer letter on the same date that he filed this Motion with the Court. Therefore, the
Court holds that Edwards' efforts to meet and confer were not done in good faith, and the Court
denies the Motion to Compel on this basis. The Court further holds that Defendants did not
unnecessarily delay discovery production in this case because they mailed their Response to
Plaintiffs Fourth Final Request for Production of Documents on June 9, 2017, prior to the June 17,
2017 close of discovery. The Court, therefore, denies Edwards' Motion to Compel.
V.

Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 123)

Edwards moved this Court to order Defendants to produce documents requested m
Edwards' Third Request for Production of Documents. Edwards references his Motion for an
Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86), which was previously denied by this Court. The
Court again holds that Edwards failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before filing this motion.
Edwards mailed the meet and confer letter on the same date that he filed this Motion with the
Court. Therefore, the Court holds that Edwards' efforts to meet and confer were not done in good
faith. The Court denies the Motion to Compel on this basis and because it previously denied his
Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 86).
VI.

Edwards' Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 129)
3

Edwards asks this Court to Order Defendants to respond to his Fifth Final Production of
Documents. Edwards claims that he did not received Defendants' response to Plaintiffs Fifth
Final Request for Production of Documents when it was due. Edwards claims that Defendants
"strategically mailed Plaintiffs Fifth Final Production of Documents knowing the weekend would
expire the June 17, 2017 Discovery deadline, enabling Plaintiff no time to review and respond and
mail his 'objections' to the Court." (ECF No. 129 at 2). Edwards asks this Court to reject
Defendants' objections on this basis. The Court finds no evidence that Defendants sent Edwards
their responses out of time or that such delay was motivated by a desire to obstruct the discovery
process. Further, the Court holds that Edwards failed to comply with E.D.Mo. L.R. 3.04 before
filing this motion and the Court also denies the Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery on this
basis.

VII.

Edwards' Motion for Leave of Court (ECF No. 137) and Edwards' Motion for
Court Permission for Live Video Transmission (ECF No. 144)

In the Motion for Leave of Court, Edwards seeks leave of the Court for the testimony of the
witness Antoinette Jackson. Edwards also asks that this Court add Ms. Jackson to his list of
witnesses to be subpoenaed by ad testificandum if this case goes to trial. The Court holds that
Edwards has not stated a sufficient basis to subpoena Ms. Jackson's deposition testimony, nor has
he satisfied the procedural machinations necessary to secure her testimony, such as paying the
witness and mileage fees. The Court does not address whether the Court will permit Edwards to
subpoena Ms. Jackson for trial or if it will allow video transmission of her testimony because such
requests are premature.

VIII. Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 145)

4

Edwards moves this Court to issue an order compelling Defendants to produce documents
in response to Plaintiff's Request for Additional Discovery. (ECF No. 145). Edwards, however,
fails to show that his requests are necessary to litigate this case or that he has not previously
requested such material from Defendants. See ECF No. 130 at 6 (Court Order requiring such a
showing prior to granting a motion to compel). Rather, the information sought seems to be
duplicative of prior requests. The Court denies the Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery.
IX.

Edwards' Motion for Court Order for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 152)

Edwards asked this Court to order a settlement conference because he does not want
Defendants misrepresenting the facts of this case or using other stalling tactics to prevent
settlement. In response, Defendants stated that they have not been authorized to engage in
settlement negotiations. (ECF No. 156). Because it appears that any settlement discussions
would be futile, the Court denies the Motion for Court Order for Settlement Conference.
X.

Edwards' Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 157)

Edwards requests appointment of counsel.

This Court previously denied Edwards'

requests for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 130 at 3). The Court again denies Edwards'
Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Edwards has demonstrated that he is capable of litigating
this action and there are no new circumstances that warrant appointment of counsel. Further, any
concern regarding trial in this case is premature.
XI.

Plaintiff's Withdrawal to Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum (Doc. No.
143) in Part, Withdrawal of Motion for Court Permission for Live Video
Witnesses (Doc No. 144) as Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Response to
Deposition to Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. No.
145) and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Response to Opposition to
Plaintiff's Letter to Confer (ECF No. 146) and Plaintiff's Request for
Additional Discovery (ECF No. 146-1) (ECF No. 161)

5

It is unclear what relief Edwards seeks in this Motion. To the extent that Edwards seeks to

withdraw his prior motions, such relief is granted and the Motions are deemed withdrawn.

XII.

Edwards' Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Order Examination for
Admissibility of Duplicates (ECF No. 164)

Edwards moves this Court to order the examination of documents attached to his Motion to
determine whether the documents were forged. Edwards relies on Fed. R. Evid. 1003 to request
that this Court make a finding regarding whether possibly forged duplicates will be admissible at
trial. The Court denies this Motion, without prejudice, because it is premature. The Court will
decide this issue, if necessary, prior to trial.

XIII. Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 172)
Edwards filed his Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery on or around August 16,
2017. (ECF No. 172). Edwards asks Defendants to produce Plaintiffs Request for MDOC
Grievance Management Update Appeal/Reprisal Report for FCC-14-1351. Defendants argue
that Edwards' Motion to Compel should be denied as untimely because it was filed after the
deadline for filing discovery motions. (ECF No. 174; see also ECF No. 55 (setting a June 17,
2017 deadline for filing motions to compel)). The Court agrees and denies Edwards' Motion to
Compel as untimely. The Court also denies this request because it appears to be duplicative of
prior requests.

XIV. Edwards' Motion for Clerk and Memorandum for Subpoenas (ECF No. 173)
and Edwards' Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas (ECF No. 189)
Edwards requests a blank subpoena duces tecum directed to Chief of State Jason L. Grice
from State Senator Jamiah Nasheed's Office (ECF No. 173) and Edwards seeks six (6) authorized
document subpoenas for service in this case. The Court, however, had previously given Edwards

6

instruction on how to serve a subpoena on Mr. Grice, including payment of witness and mileage
fees. See ECF No. 159. Accordingly, the Court denies Edwards' Motion for Clerk because
Edwards failed to satisfy the requirements for service of a subpoena on Mr. Grice or on any other
witness.
XV.

Edwards' Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation (ECF No. 193)

Edwards asks this Court grant him leave to amend by interlineation the title of his response
to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment. Defendants note that the Case Management Order (ECF No. 55) required that all
motions for summary judgment be filed no later than July 17, 2017, and this deadline was extended
to August 31, 2017.

(ECF Nos. 55, 167, 170).

Edwards' "Affidavit in Opposition to

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" was filed on September 22, 2017. (ECF No. 185).
Edwards did not seek leave for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment and
Edwards' document indicated that it was a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Defendants assert that they would be prejudiced to change Edwards' document to a
motion for summary judgment by interlineation. The Court agrees. The deadline for Edwards to
file a Motion for Summary Judgment has passed and Defendants would be prejudiced ifthe Court
were to construe Edwards' opposition as a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court denies
Edwards' Motion to Amend by Interlineation.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to
Order Release of PREA Risk Assessment (ECF No. 82), Motion for an Order Compelling
Discovery (ECF No. 86), Motion for Pretrial Disclosures (ECF No. 114), Motion for an Order

7

Compelling Discovery and Extension of Time (ECF No. 116), Motion for an Order Compelling
Discovery (ECF No. 123), Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 129), Motion for
Leave of Court (ECF No. 137), Motion for Court Permission for Live Video Transmission (ECF
No. 144), Edwards' Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 145), Motion for Court
Order for Settlement Conference (ECF No. 152), Edwards' Motion for Appointment of Counsel
(ECF No. 157), Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Order Examination for Admissibility
of Duplicates (ECF No. 164), Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 172), Motion
for Clerk and Memorandum for Subpoenas (ECF No. 173), Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas
(ECF No. 189), and Motion for Leave to Amend by Interlineation (ECF No. 193) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Withdrawal to Plaintiffs Supplemental

Memorandum (Doc. No. 143) in Part, Withdrawal of Motion for Court Permission for Live Video
Witnesses (Doc No. 144) as Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants' Response to Deposition to
Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. No. 145) and Plaintiffs Opposition
to Defendants' Response to Opposition to Plaintiffs Letter to Confer (ECF No. 146) and
Plaintiffs Request for Additional Discovery (ECF No. 146-1) (ECF No. 161) is GRANTED.

Dated thls!J'f;; of November, 2017.

~cL/t!fdv
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8