Ojo v. Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, Superintendent et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying without prejudice 30 Motion to Compel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(gla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Osahenrumwen Ojo
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-210-JL

Eldin Medic et al.

O R D E R
Plaintiff Osahenrumwen Ojo has filed “Motion: for Report of
Violation of Rules” (doc. no. 30), alleging deficiencies in
defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Defendants object (doc. no. 31).

Ojo has filed several replies

to defendants’ objection (doc. no. 33, 34, 38 and 39), and
defendants have filed a second objection (doc. no. 35).

The

court has considered all of the relevant documents and, for the
reasons discussed herein, denies Ojo’s motion (doc. no. 30).
Background
While incarcerated at the Hillsborough County House of
Corrections (“HCHC”), Ojo filed a civil rights action against a
number of defendants, all employees of the HCHC.

After

conducting preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)
and this court’s local rules, the undersigned magistrate judge
directed service of a single excessive force claim against two

defendants, HCHC officers Justin Goulding and Eldin Medic, and
recommended the dismissal of all of the other claims and
defendants from this action.

See Order (doc. no. 21); Report

and Recommendation (doc. no. 20).
recommendation of dismissal.

The district judge adopted my

See Order (doc. no. 25) (approving

report and recommendation).
The surviving claim against Goulding and Medic arises out
of a February 25, 2011, incident at the HCHC.

As alleged in the

complaint, the incident began with a physical altercation
between Ojo and another inmate.

HCHC officers responded, and

ultimately restrained Ojo in his cell before transferring him to
another unit in the prison.

The excessive force claim that

remains in this action arises out of Ojo’s allegation that,
while escorting Ojo to his new unit, Medic and Goulding injured
him by repeatedly slamming his head against a door.
Procedural History
On February 2, 2012, defendants filed an assented-to
proposed discovery plan (doc. no. 29), which was approved by the
court on February 3, 2012.

The portions of that plan relevant

to the instant motion provided for each party to submit a
maximum of twenty-five interrogatories and ten requests for
admissions to any other party within thirty days of service of

2

the approved discovery plan.
requests to defendants.1
requests.

Ojo promptly submitted discovery

The defendants have responded to the

Ojo objects to defendants’ alleged failure to provide

certain requested information in their responses.2
Discussion
I.

Requests for Admissions
Ojo claims that defendants have failed to respond fully to

Ojo’s requests for admission.

Rule 36(a)(1) of the Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure states that: “[a] party may serve on any
other party a written request to admit . . . the truth of any
matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A)
facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either;
and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.”

If a party

is dissatisfied with any response to its request for admissions,
the requesting party “may move to determine the sufficiency of

1

The “requests for admissions” and interrogatories Ojo sent
to the defendants in this matter, and defendants’ responses
thereto, appear in the record as exhibits, and are docketed as
documents 35-1, 35-2, 35-3, 35-4, and 38-1.
2

Plaintiff initially complained that defendants had failed
to respond to the discovery requests altogether. Defendants
have since responded to those requests, and plaintiff’s
objections have now evolved into objections to the withholding
of certain information Ojo alleges is not included in
defendants’ responses. In this order, the court addresses the
current state of the discovery dispute, as the court understands
it based on the parties’ filings.
3

an answer or objection.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).

Where the

request is objected to, the court will then either determine
that the objection is justified, or order that an answer be
served.

Id.

Where the sufficiency of an answer is contested,

if the court finds that the challenged answer fails to comply
with Rule 36, “the court may order either that the matter is
admitted or that an amended answer be served.”

Id.

Here, the bulk of the relevant “requests for admission,”
dated February 16, 2012, contain questions that are more like
interrogatories than requests for admissions.

In an effort to

comply with the spirit of Ojo’s requests, however, defendants
have attempted to respond to the requests as posed.
To the extent that Ojo did request admissions from
defendants, defendants have objected to the form of the
requests.

Alongside their objections, defendants have also

submitted their sworn HCHC incident reports, in which defendants
provide their account of the relevant events and circumstances
in this case.

Ojo has not specified the admissions (or other

discovery) that he claims defendants have failed to provide him.
For this reason, the motion seeking an order compelling
defendants to answer the requests for admission is denied.

4

II.

Discovery and Interrogatories
Ojo propounded interrogatories, as well as “request for

admissions,” upon individuals and entities that have been
dismissed from this action.
discovery requests.

Ojo has since withdrawn those

See Reply to Defendants’ Objection to

Motion to Compel (doc. no. 38).
Ojo asserts that defendants Medic and Goulding should be
compelled to respond to his discovery requests concerning: (1)
certain personal information (i.e., dates of birth, home
address, financial records); (2) their training and experience;
(3) prior grievances and lawsuits that may have been filed
against them; (4) maps and photographs of the areas of the HCHC
relevant to this action; (5) video of plaintiff’s entire stay at
the HCHC; (6) medical information and records; (7) Ojo’s
institutional grievance records; and (8) defendants’ statements
concerning the incident forming the basis of the claim in this
action.
Medic and Goulding object on the basis of relevance,
privacy issues, and security concerns, and they assert that they
have substantially answered all questions seeking discoverable
information.

Defendants note that in addition to providing

answers to Ojo’s interrogatories and discovery requests, they

5

have provided Ojo with a complete copy of his HCHC inmate file
and a complete copy of his HCHC medical records.
A.

Scope of Discovery

“[T]he purpose of pretrial discovery is to ‘make trial less
a game of blindman’s bluff and more a fair contest with the
basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable
extent.’”

Wamala v. City of Nashua, No. 09-cv-304-JD, 2010 WL

3746008, at *1 (D.N.H. Sept. 20, 2010) (quoting Macaulay v.
Anas, 321 F.3d 45, 53 (1st Cir. 2003)).

“Unless otherwise

limited by court order, the scope of discovery . . . [extends
to] any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s
claim or defense – including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any documents . . . .
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

When a

party is dissatisfied with an opponent’s response to a discovery
request, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit that party
to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.”
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

Fed.

“‘The party seeking information in

discovery over an adversary’s objection has the burden of
showing its relevance.’”

Gavin v. Liberty Mut. Group Inc., No.

6

11-cv-159-LM, 2012 WL 3192822, at *2 (D.N.H. Aug. 6, 2012)
(quoting Caouette v. OfficeMax, Inc., 352 F.Supp.2d 134, 136
(D.N.H. 2005)).
B.

Ojo’s Institutional Records

As previously noted, defendants have provided Ojo with a
copy of his entire HCHC file and all of his HCHC medical
records.

Ojo claims that there are grievance forms and requests

for medical attention that he filled out, but that are missing
from those files.

Defendants state that they have provided all

of the grievances and other documents in their possession to
Ojo, and Ojo has not asserted any facts demonstrating that the
court should not accept defendants’ assertion as true.

The

court finds that defendants have provided Ojo with all of the
information in their possession or control concerning Ojo’s
medical, grievance, and institutional records.

Accordingly, the

motion to compel further discovery, to the extent it requests
institutional records, is denied.
C.

Other Requests

After careful review of all of the discovery materials in
the record, the court finds that defendants have provided, or
agreed to provide, all of the discoverable information in their
possession.

Ojo either has not made any showing that, with

7

respect to materials that Ojo claims he has not received, that
defendants possess or have access to those materials.

Nor has

Ojo demonstrated that the discovery in dispute is relevant to a
material issue in this case, or is “reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
P. 26(b)(1).

See Fed. R. Civ.

Accordingly, Ojo’s motion to compel discovery is

denied, without prejudice to refiling should defendants fail to
provide, within thirty days of the date of this order, discovery
that they have agreed to provide, or that they are otherwise
obligated to provide on an ongoing basis.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Ojo’s motion to compel discovery
(doc. no. 30) is denied without prejudice to renewal, should
defendants fail to provide information that they have agreed to
provide within thirty days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date:
cc:

October 15, 2012

Osahenrumwen Ojo, pro se
John A. Curran, Esq.

LBM:jba

8