Beaulieu v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

Filing 171

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 162 Motion to Compel. For reasons explained in this Order, Defendants are directed to provide answers to the requests for admission in Request 6, within seven days of the date of this Order. Summary Judgment objection is due February 16, 2018. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone.(ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Beaulieu
a/k/a Crystal Beaulieu
v.

Case No. 15-cv-012-JD
Opinion No. 2018 DNH 019

Cpl. Craig Orlando et al.

O R D E R

At a discovery status conference held on September 22,
2017, the court, after consultation with the parties, deemed
discovery in this case closed, as to the claims asserted against
the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) defendants.1
Notwithstanding that finding, the court granted plaintiff
Crystal Beaulieu leave to file a motion to compel discovery,
pertaining to discovery requests Beaulieu had already propounded
to the DOC defendants.

Those rulings were memorialized in the

court’s September 28, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 159).

Beaulieu

subsequently filed the instant motion to compel (Doc. No. 162),
to which defendants object (Doc. No. 163).

1Discovery

has not closed with respect to Beaulieu’s claims
asserted against defendant Matthew Rodier.

Discovery Order Requested by Beaulieu
In her motion to compel, plaintiff asks the court to direct
the defendants to provide her with the following discovery:
1.

Answers to written questions (attached to the

motion to compel as Exhibits A, B, and C), from five
employees of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) who are not defendants to this action.
2.

All request slips written to defendant Barbara

Slayton during 2013 and 2014;
3.

New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) medical and

security records concerning three uses of force that
occurred at the NHSP Secure Housing Unit (“SHU”) in 2016
and 2017;
4.

The ability to view video footage of the March

2012 incident at issue in this case;
5.

The course completion status sheets for

defendants Slayton, Stevenson, Cascio, Kimball, and Bishop,
concerning their Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”)
training;
6.

Clarification of or supplemental answers to

requests #3 and #4 in plaintiff’s fourth request for
admissions, and request #1 in plaintiff’s fifth request for
admissions; and

2

7.

Defendant Cascio’s answers to questions attached

to the motion to compel as Exhibit D.
Discussion
I.

Non-Party Witnesses (Request 1)
Slayton Request Slips (Request 2)
Use of Force Records (Request 3)
Cascio Responses to New Questions (Request 7)
In the requests identified in this Order as Requests 1-3

and 7, Beaulieu makes new discovery requests in that they were
not made prior to the close of discovery.

As defendants point

out in their objection, this case was filed approximately three
years ago, discovery has been ongoing for more than two years,
and discovery is now closed.

Because discovery has closed,

should Beaulieu need additional discovery materials, she must
seek leave of court to reopen discovery, demonstrating good
cause for not seeking the discovery in question prior to the
close of discovery.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

Beaulieu has neither moved to reopen discovery nor
demonstrated good cause for doing so, nor demonstrated that her
failure to request the discovery in Requests 1-3 and 7 was the
result of excusable neglect.

For these reasons, her motion to

compel responses to Requests 1-3 and 7 are denied, without
prejudice to Beaulieu’s ability to move to reopen discovery
making the appropriate showing.

3

II.

Access to Video of March 2012 Incident (Request 4)
In Request 4, Beaulieu seeks access to a video of the March

2012 incident underlying claims in this action.

Defendants

object, stating that Beaulieu has seen the video twice and had
the opportunity to take notes, and that Beaulieu has not
demonstrated that she has made any reasonable request for
further access to the video that has been denied.

Because

Beaulieu has failed to show that she has requested and been
denied the ability to view the video, her motion to compel in
that regard is denied.

III. PREA Training Records (Request 5)
In Request 5, Beaulieu seeks documentation of training
defendants have received.

Defendants object, stating that the

only document in the DOC’s possession that is responsive to
Beaulieu’s request has already been provided to Beaulieu.
Beaulieu has not demonstrated any basis to find that additional
documents in fact exist, and defendants cannot produce documents
they do not have.

Accordingly, her motion to compel a response

to Request 5 is denied.

IV.

Request 6
Beaulieu seeks clarification of the following responses she

received to three requests for admissions propounded to
4

defendants.

In Beaulieu’s Fourth Request for Admissions, she

asked defendants to admit the truth of certain statements, and
received responses, as follows:


Request for Admission (3): “That spit is not seen
hitting Cpl Orlando’s face on security video footage
dated 3-7-2012.”
Response: “The video of the incident speaks for
itself. Admitted that the video shows Plaintiff turn
toward Cpl. Craig Orlando, and then an immediate
reaction from Orlando.”



Request for Admission (4): “Lt. Paul N. Courchesne
claims on the Disciplinary Report that he seen the
spit hit Cpl. Orlando’s face.”
Response: “The Disciplinary Report speaks for itself.
Admitted that the Disciplinary Report states, in part,
‘Inmate Beaulieu turns to his left and spits onto the
right side of Cpl. Orlando’s face.’ This statement is
included within the ‘Summary of Investigation’ section
of the Disciplinary Report, which also states that
‘Inmate Beaulieu did not deny spitting on Cpl.
Orlando, only that “Orlando assaulted me too.”’”

Doc. No. 163-1, at 3.

In Beaulieu’s Fifth Request for

Admission, in pertinent part, she asked defendants to admit the
truth of a statement, and received a response as follows:


Request for Admission (1): “That the victim and
perpetrators should not be within sight or sound of
each other at any time in accordance with the policy.”2

2Defendants’

Response to Beaulieu’s Fifth Request for
Admissions (Doc. No. 163-2) does not make clear that Beaulieu
identified a specific “policy” in the request for admission at
issue here. Defendants’ answer to that request, however,
indicates that “PPD 5.19” is the pertinent policy, and plaintiff
has not disputed that.
5

Response: “PPD 5.10 provides the Prison Rape
Elimination Act Procedures for the New Hampshire
Department of Corrections. The PPD speaks for itself.
By way of further answer, an immediate change of
housing to ensure that an alleged perpetrator and
alleged victim are not housed within sight or sound
distance of each other can be difficult to achieve in
the Secure Psychiatric Unit due to the different
security levels of inmates/patients and the different
levels of care between the wards in SPU. In addition,
inmates/patients cannot be moved out of SPU unless the
Director of Medical and Forensics Services approves of
such a move and an alternative placement is arranged.”
Doc. No. 163-2, at 1.
Beaulieu argues that the defendants’ responses, to the
extent they state that the video, disciplinary report, or policy
“speaks for itself,” are unclear and evasive.

Defendants object

to Beaulieu’s request for clarification of their answers,
stating that they have “clearly and thoroughly” responded to the
pertinent requests.
The court must examine whether the defendants’ answers
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4), governing answers to
requests for admission.

That rule states:

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must
specifically deny it or state in detail why the
answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A
denial must fairly respond to the substance of the
matter; and when good faith requires that a party
qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the
answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or
deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to
admit or deny only if the party states that it has
made reasonable inquiry and that the information it
knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable
it to admit or deny.
6

If the Court finds that an answer does not meet the requirements
of Rule 36, it “may order either that the matter is admitted or
that an amended answer be served,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).
See Jones v. Univ. of Memphis, No. 2:15-CV-02148-JPM-CGC, 2016
WL 6123510, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 23, 2016), R&R adopted, 2016
WL 6109407 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016).
Although defendants made statements in their responses in
addition to asserting that the item in question spoke for
itself, the statements in Beaulieu’s requests for admission are
neither admitted by the answer, nor expressly denied, and
defendants have not explained why they cannot truthfully admit
or deny their truth.

Accordingly, the responses at issue in

Request 6 do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 36(a)(4).
The motion to compel is granted, in part, as to Request 6.
Defendants are directed to serve plaintiff with a response that
admits, denies, or states in detail why the defendants cannot
truthfully admit or deny the three requests for admission above,
in a manner that complies with the requirements of Rule 36,
within seven days of the date of this Order.

Should defendants

fail to comply with this Order, the above-cited statements will
be deemed admitted.
Conclusion
For reasons explained in this Order, Beaulieu’s motion to
compel (Doc. No. 162) is granted, in part, as to Request 6 as
7

identified in this Order, and is otherwise denied.

Defendants

are directed to provide answers to the requests for admission in
Request 6, as discussed above, within seven days of the date of
this Order.

The defendants’ timely compliance with this Order

is expected to allow Beaulieu sufficient time to utilize that
information, as necessary, in her summary judgment objection,
which is due February 16, 2018.
SO ORDERED.

______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
January 29, 2018
cc:

Christopher R. Beaulieu, pro se
Matthew C. Rodier, pro se
Laura E.B. Lombardi, Esq.

8