Cockshutt v. State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction et al
Filing
69
OPINION AND ORDER plaintiffs motion to compel, Doc. No. 60 is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 2/28/13. (rew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN D. COCKSHUTT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 2:12-cv-532
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King
STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION & CORRECTION,
et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff John D. Cockshutt, a state prisoner, alleges that his
security level was increased based on a false conduct charge, denying
him his rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.
This matter is now before the Court, with consent of the
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for consideration of
Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Schmutz’s Response for Production of
Documents and Request for Order (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel”), Doc.
No. 60, in which plaintiff seeks to compel the production of documents
from defendant Trooper Schmutz.
Defendant Schmutz has not filed a
response.
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a
motion to compel discovery when a party fails to provide a proper
response to requests for production of documents under Rule 34.
Rule
37(a) expressly provides that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure,
answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer,
or respond.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
“The proponent of a motion to
compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving that the
information sought is relevant.”
Martin v. Select Portfolio Serving
Holding Corp., No. 1:05-cv-273, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68779, at *2
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2006) (citing Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of
Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.D.C. 1999)).
Relevance for
discovery purposes is extremely broad; Miller v. Fed. Express Corp.,
186 F.R.D. 376, 383 (W.D. Tenn. 1999); Rule 26(b) provides that
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.”
P. 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ.
“The test is whether the line of interrogation is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.”
Mellon v. Cooper–Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 500–01 (6th
Cir. 1970) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff argues that defendant Schmutz failed to produce any of
the documents sought in plaintiff’s January 17, 2013 discovery
request.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, p. 1.
Plaintiff further
argues that defendant Schmutz improperly asserted that the documents
sought were privileged or that the documents were not in his
possession.
Id. at pp. 1-2.
Plaintiff has not, however, provided the
Court with a copy of his discovery request or any information
regarding the documents sought.
Under the circumstances, the Court
cannot conclude that the documents plaintiff seeks to compel are
relevant to his claims.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 60, is therefore DENIED.
2
February 28, 2013
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?