Blair v. Douglas County et al

Filing 155

ORDER denying 142 the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories Douglas County. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN R. BLAIR,
Plaintiff,

8:11CV349

vs.
ORDER
DOUGLAS COUNTY,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s, Steven R. Blair (Blair), Motion to
Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories Douglas County (Filing No. 142). In response,
the defendant, Douglas County, filed a Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(Filing No. 146),1 an index of evidence (Filing No. 147), and a brief (Filing No. 148). Blair
filed a brief (Filing No. 154) in reply.

BACKGROUND
This matter arises from Blair’s May 12, 1997, arrest and subsequent conviction for
assault, kidnapping, and terroristic threats.

See Filing No. 90 - Second Amended

Complaint. Blair was released from prison in 2005 after his conviction was set aside in
2003. Id. Blair alleges violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments as well as Brady violations associated with the state criminal proceedings
related to his arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing. Id. Blair alleges a Douglas
County policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations. Id. Douglas
County generally denies the allegations and has moved for summary judgment.2 Blair was
previously represented by counsel but is now proceeding pro se.
On November 5, 2013, Blair served Douglas County with his First Set of
Interrogatories. See Filing No. 119 - Certificate of Service. The interrogatories generally
seek Douglas County’s policies and practices in complying with Nebraska directives,

1

The defendant’s Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is in contradiction with the
local rules. The Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska provide: “The
party opposing a motion must not file an “answer,” “opposition,” “objection,” or “response,” or any similarly
titled responsive pleading. Rather, the party must file a brief that concisely states the reasons for
opposing the motion and cites to supporting authority.” NECivR 7.1(b)(1)(A).
2
The court will address Douglas County’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment in a separate
order.

statutes, rules, and case law guidelines.

See Filing No. 133-6 - Blair’s First Set of

Interrogatories and Douglas County’s Answers. On December 23, 2013, Douglas County
served its answers to Blair’s First Set of Interrogatories. See Filing No. 125 - Certificate of
Service. On January 16, 2014, Blair sent a letter to Douglas County’s counsel requesting
specific information and non-evasive answers from Douglas County by January 31, 2014,
otherwise Blair would seek an order compelling answers. See Filing No. 142 - Motion p. 6 Jan. 16, 2014, Letter. On April 2, 2014, Blair filed the instant motion to compel. See Filing
No. 142 - Motion. Blair seeks an order compelling Douglas County to supplement the
December 23, 2013, answers.

Id.

Blair argues Douglas County’s answers to

interrogatories two through twenty-five are evasive and incomplete. Id. (citing Filing No.
133-6 - Douglas County’s Answers).
In response, Douglas County argues it provided complete, responsive answers or
objections to Blair’s interrogatories.

See Filing No. 148 - Response.

Douglas County

argues because there are no stand-alone policies responsive to Blair’s requests, there is
nothing to compel. Id. Additionally, Douglas County contends Blair’s letter does not satisfy
the meet and confer requirement under Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(i). Id.

ANALYSIS
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Broad discovery is an important
tool for the litigant, and so ‘[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’”
WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Family Support, Inc., 628 F.3d 1032, 1039 (8th Cir.
2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)).

Accordingly, relevant

information includes “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter
that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Mere speculation that information might be useful will
not suffice; litigants seeking to compel discovery must describe with a reasonable degree of
specificity the information they hope to obtain and its importance to their case.

See

Cervantes v. Time, Inc., 464 F.2d 986, 994 (8th Cir. 1972). Once the requesting party
meets the threshold relevance burden, generally “[a]ll discovery requests are a burden on
the party who must respond thereto. Unless the task of producing or answering is unusual,
undue or extraordinary, the general rule requires the entity answering or producing the
2

documents to bear that burden.” Continental Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v.
Caton, 136 F.R.D. 682, 684-85 (D. Kan. 1991) (citation omitted).
Regarding interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, generally, “[t]he
responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being
served with the interrogatories.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the
extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(3). If an objection is made, “[t]he grounds for objecting to an interrogatory
must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless
the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).
Douglas County provided responsive, non-evasive answers or properly asserted
objections to Blair’s interrogatories. Although the responses may not meet Blair’s approval,
such disapproval does not negate the sufficiency of Douglas County’s answers and
objections. Blair generally sought the identification of specific policies related to criminal
prosecution.

See Filing No. 133-6 - Douglas County’s Answers.

Douglas County

answered, “the policy of the Douglas County Attorney’s Office has been to perform its duties
pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 23-1201” and decisions made while performing such duties
are “made on a case-by-case basis[.]” Id. Additionally, in various answers, as applicable,
Douglas County noted it does not possess “stand-alone polic[ies] specifically addressing” all
facets of a criminal prosecution. Id. The court cannot compel supplemental answers or the
production of information that does not exist. Blair fails to establish how Douglas County’s
answers are incomplete or evasive. Blair apparently seeks a one-size-fits-all policy for all
criminal prosecutions which, according to Douglas County’s answers, simply does not exist.
After review, the court finds Douglas County’s answers are sufficient. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
Blair’s Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories Douglas County (Filing
No. 142) is denied.

Dated this 1st day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
3