Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 254

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 237 Motion to Compel Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 3/13/2012. (TXB, ) Modified on 3/14/2012 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury this date(APP, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON,
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BOONE KARLBERG, P.C.,
DR. ROBERT BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH,
NANSU RODDY, JERRY STEELE,
STEVE SNAVELY, STEVEN BRUNER-MURPHY,
RYAN OSTER, KENNETH S. BELL, and JENNIFER LINT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury’s motion requesting the
Court to enter an order, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6) and 37(a),
to compel a further response from Defendant Lee Enterprises, Inc., to certain
discovery requests. As best as can be ascertained from Spreadbury’s motion, the
discovery requests in dispute are: (1) Request for Admission No. 1; (2) Request
for Admission No. 4; and (3) Request for Production No. 3.
A.

Request for Admission No. 1
Request for Admission No. 1 reads as follows:
-1-

Please admit reporter, photographer sent to cover Plaintiff summons for
trespassing at Bitterroot Public Library by Defendant Perry Backus, former
editor Defendant Ravalli Republic Hamilton Municipal Court September 9,
2009.
Lee interposed an objection stating the request is “unintelligible and
therefore Lee is unable to answer the Request for Admission and denies the same.”
Dkt. 238-1, at 7.
A request for admission is objectionable if the request is so vague or
ambiguous that the responding party cannot answer it. See e.g. Erie Ins. Property
and Casualty Co. v. Johnson, 272 F.R.D. 177, 185 (S.D.W.Va. 2010). The
responding party must, however, when good faith requires, qualify an answer or
deny only a part of the matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Implicit in this
requirement is the notion that the responding party must read the request in the
context of the case and in light of the information known to that party.
That being said, it is important to note that the response to Request for
Admission No. 1 was served on January 31, 2012 – a point in time prior to Lee
being granted summary judgment upon some of Spreadbury’s defamation claims.
At present, the sole claim remaining against Lee is Spreadbury’s claim of
defamation per se based upon an August 9, 2010, article published in the Ravalli
Public – a newspaper owned by Lee – that erroneously reported Spreadbury had

-2-

been convicted of the criminal offense of disturbing the peace. See Dkt. 249, at 610. The admission sought by way of Request for Admission No. 1 is not relevant
to the remaining claim. If the Court were to address the parties’ dispute regarding
Request for Admission No. 1, as framed, it would be impermissibly issuing an
advisory opinion. Therefore, this aspect of Spreadbury’s motion is properly
denied.
B.

Request for Admission No. 4
Spreadbury’s Request for Admission No. 4 reads:
Please admit Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. is a publisher of newspapers
and its proprietary websites such as www.ravallirepublic.com
www.missoulian.com, and www.billingsgazette.com inter alia are owned by
Defendant Lee Enterprises.
Lee provided a qualified response to this compound request, admitting that

it is the owner and publisher of newspapers including the Ravalli Republic, the
Missoulian, and the Billings Gazette. But Lee objected on grounds of relevancy to
making a similar admission regarding the referenced websites based on the
undersigned’s recommendation (Dkt. 181) that Lee be granted summary judgment
on Spreadbury’s claim that Lee is liable for on-line comments made on the
websites by third parties – a recommendation that was adopted by the presiding
district judge. Dkt. 249, at 3-5.

-3-

As noted, the only remaining claim Spreadbury has against Lee is his claim
for defamation per se grounded upon the August 9, 2010, article published in the
Ravalli Republic. Review of the record reflects that articles published in the hard
copy of the Ravalli Republic are routinely published on the paper’s website, as
well as on the websites of other newspapers owned by Lee. The determination of
whether Lee owns the referenced websites bears on the issue of how widely the
August 9, 2010, article was disseminated – a fact which could conceivably prove
relevant to the issue of damages. Consequently, the Court is constrained to
conclude that Request for Admission No. 4 is “reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, this
aspect of Spreadbury’s motion is granted and Lee shall serve a further response to
Request for Admission No. 4 on or before March 23, 2012.
C.

Request for Production No. 3
Spreadbury’s Request for Production No. 3 states:
Produce list of any internet service customers in the State of Montana or
elsewhere that gain access and internet services provided by Defendant Lee
in accordance with the Communications Decency Act.
Lee interposes objections that the request is “overbroad and unduly

burdensome” and seeks irrelevant information. Lee does respond that it does not
have such a list in its possession. The Court finds that the request is unduly
-4-

burdensome, especially in light of the fact that Lee does not have such a list in its
possession. Spreadbury offers no persuasive argument to the contrary. Therefore,
this aspect of Spreadbury’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of March, 2012
/s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

-5-