ROGERS v. NJDOC et al

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER affirm 89 Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision on 8/4/2017 Order, etc. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 6/29/2018. (dmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARTIN LUTHER ROGERS,
HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
15-7005 (JBS-JS)

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

NJDOC, et al.,
Defendants.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Martin Luther Rogers, pro se (“Plaintiff”) brings
this motion [Docket Item 89] appealing from the Order of U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider filed August 4, 2017. [Docket
Item 86.] For the reasons discussed below, the Court will affirm
the August 4, 2017 Order in part and remand for consideration of
the sufficiency of the “Rutgers Defendants’” responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3. The Court finds as follows:
1.

Judge Schneider’s August 4, 2017 Order addressed two

discovery motions filed by Plaintiff seeking to compel discovery
from Defendants Rutgers University Behavioral and Correctional
Health Care, Laurie Valentino, and Christopher Simkins
(collectively, the “Rutgers Defendants”). [Docket Items 73 &
79.] Plaintiff now appeals the decision on one of those motions,
the motion to compel the Rutgers Defendants to supply more

responsive answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories.
[Docket Item 79.]
2.

In this appeal, Plaintiff argues that the Rutgers

Defendants’ responses to Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3 were
deficient and evasive and that Judge Schneider only addressed
the sufficiency of the Rutgers Defendants’ response to
Interrogatory No. 1, overlooking the dispute about the
sufficiency of responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3. [Docket
Item 89-1 at ¶ 6.] Judge Schneider interpreted Plaintiff’s July
14, 2017 reply letter [Docket Item 82] as indicating that only
the Rutgers Defendants’ reply to Interrogatory No. 1 remained in
dispute, and he addressed only the sufficiency of the response
to that Interrogatory. [Docket Item 86 at 2-3, n.2.] Plaintiff
does not quarrel with Judge Schneider’s determination that the
Rutgers Defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 1 was
responsive and valid [id. at 4], which, for good cause shown,
the Court will now affirm. Instead, Plaintiff argues that Judge
Schneider did not address the alleged deficiency and evasiveness
of the responses to Interiority Nos. 2 and 3, which remain
unresolved. [Docket Item 89-1 at ¶¶ 6-7.]
3.

Initially, Plaintiff seeks review of Judge Schneider’s

determination that Plaintiff’s July 14, 2017 reply letter on the
underlying motion [Docket Item 82], was an impermissible reply
in violation of L. Civ. R. 7.1 and 37.1(b)(3) and that it would
2

be considered for the limited purpose of narrowing the issues.
This aspect of Plaintiff’s appeal is quickly disposed of because
Judge Schneider was clearly correct – such a reply on a
discovery motion is not permitted under either L. Civ. R. 7.1 or
37.1(b)(3), and Judge Schneider, who could have simply rejected
the reply outright, was well within his discretion to consider
it for this limited purpose.
4.

Having reviewed the July 14, 2017 reply letter [Docket

Item 82], it is understandable that Judge Schneider interpreted
the letter as “clarif[ying] that defendants’ response to
Interrogatory No. 1 of plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories
remains deficient.” [Docket Item 86 at 3.] Indeed, in his reply
letter, Plaintiff told the Court, “while Plaintiff did receive
said correspondence, Defendants’ response did not provide the
requested information regarding Interrogatory No. 1 of
Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories,” and did not mention
Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3 at all. [Docket Item 82.] Thus, it
was entirely reasonable for Judge Schneider to assume “the only
remaining issue before the Court is whether defendants’ response
to plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1 is deficient and, thus,
requires an additional response from defendants.” [Docket Item
86 at 3.] Nevertheless, it appears, as he now argues in this
appeal, that pro se Plaintiff intended by his reply letter to
merely reference the Rutgers Defendants’ deficient response to
3

Interrogatory No. 1 as an example in support of the continued
viability of his motion, rather than to abandon his motion with
respect to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3. The Court will,
therefore, remand to Judge Schneider for consideration of the
sufficiency of the Rutgers Defendants’ responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, and for good cause
shown;
IT IS this

29th

day of

June

, 2018 hereby

ORDERED, upon Plaintiff’s motion [Docket Item 89] appealing
the August 4, 2017 Order of Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider,
that the Order shall be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED in part as to
Interrogatory No. 1 and remanded in part for consideration of
the sufficiency of the Rutgers Defendants’ responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3 in connection with Plaintiff’s motion
to compel. [Docket Item 79.]

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

4