Bourne v. Arruda

Filing 119

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER granting 89 Motion to Compel, with respect to Interrogatory No. 15. Plaintiff shall serve upon defendants a complete response to defendants Interrogatory No. 15, and shall either produce the requested do cuments or identify any responsive documents already within defendants possession, within 14 days of the date of this Supplemental Order. Failure to comply with this order, without a showing of good cause, may result in the imposition of sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(kad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Samuel J. Bourne
v.

Civil No. 10-cv-393-LM

John R. Arruda, Jr., et al.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
In an order dated April 2, 2012 (“April 2 Order”), the
court granted defendants’ motion to compel responses to certain
discovery requests (doc. no. 89).

The court omitted from the

April 2 Order a specific ruling on defendants’ motion to compel
as to Interrogatory No. 15, which was also part of their
original motion (doc. no. 89).

The court hereby addresses that

omission by issuing the following supplemental order relating to
defendants’ motion to compel.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (court

on its own motion may correct omissions in prior orders).
The relevant standards for ruling on discovery motions are
set forth in the April 2 Order and need not be repeated here.
Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 15 seeks relevant information
regarding the identity of persons known to plaintiff who were
involved in or knew of the alleged defamation, and the nature of
any harm to the plaintiff’s reputation claims.

Additionally,

defendants embedded in the interrogatory a request for the

production of all documents that evidence that plaintiff’s
reputation has been harmed.
Plaintiff responded to the discovery request by citing
cases that, he asserts, define when a statement may be deemed
defamatory, and by restating his claim that he was defamed when
comments made at two selectmen’s meetings were broadcast to the
“general public.”

Additionally, plaintiff noted that defendants

have recordings and transcripts of the meetings.

Plaintiff

generally objected to all interrogatories to the extent that
they sought irrelevant material, attorney-client communications,
work product, documents prepared for litigation, and documents
to be used for impeachment, but plaintiff neither specifically
identified what privileges or objections applied to particular
items to be discovered, nor produced a privilege log that would
allow the court to evaluate his general claims of privilege.
Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ Interrogatory No. 15
identifies only the defendants as persons known to plaintiff who
were involved in or knew of the alleged defamation.
Additionally, plaintiff has failed to describe the nature of any
reputational harm he claims to have suffered.
As to the document production request, plaintiff pointed to
the transcripts and recordings of the selectmen’s meetings, and
further stated in the preface to all of his responses that “all
2

relevant documents” are already in defendants’ possession,
without any further identification of those documents.
Plaintiff’s statements do not clarify whether or how such
“relevant documents” show the nature of the reputational harm he
claims.

Therefore, the answers are incomplete and evasive.

Moreover, plaintiff has not justified his failure to fully
and sufficiently respond to defendant’s Interrogatory No. 15 by
any showing regarding the relative burdens and benefits of the
requested discovery, any other objection that would warrant a
court order limiting the scope of discovery, or any valid,
verifiable claim of privilege.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) and

(5); Lluberes v. Uncommon Prods., LLC, 663 F.3d 6, 24 (1st Cir.
2011) (party resisting motion to compel has burden to show
applicable privilege).

Accordingly, the motion to compel (doc.

no. 89) as to defendants’ Interrogatory No. 15 is granted.
Conclusion
For reasons stated above and in the April 2 Order, the
court hereby grants the motion to compel (doc. no. 89), with
respect to Interrogatory No. 15.

Plaintiff shall serve upon

defendants a complete response to defendants’ Interrogatory No.
15, and shall either produce the requested documents or identify
any responsive documents already within defendants’ possession,
within 14 days of the date of this Supplemental Order.
3

The parties shall bear their own costs at this time as to
this aspect of the Motion to Compel (doc. no. 89).

Failure to

comply with this order, without a showing of good cause, may
result in the imposition of sanctions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(b).
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
June 12, 2012
cc:

Samuel J. Bourne, pro se
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

LBM:nmd

4