McCain v. Jenkins et al

Filing 104

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO STAY PRETRIALDEADLINES (DOCS. 96, 99, 103); (2) GRANTING PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION TOCOMPEL (DOC. 97); (3) ORDERING DEFEENDANTS TO SERVE WRITTENDISCOVERY RESPONSES WITH 14 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER; (4)ORDERING THAT DEFENDANTS MAY SUPPLEMENT THEIR MOTION FORJUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITH A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 7, 2018; AND (5) DENYING PRO SE PLAINTIFFSMOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 101) Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 8/6/2018. (dm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MICHAEL D. MCCAIN, SR.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-1262

vs.
CHAROLETTE JENKINS, et al.,

District Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STAY PRETRIAL
DEADLINES (DOCS. 96, 99, 103); (2) GRANTING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL (DOC. 97); (3) ORDERING DEFEENDANTS TO SERVE WRITTEN
DISCOVERY RESPONSES WITH 14 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER; (4)
ORDERING THAT DEFENDANTS MAY SUPPLEMENT THEIR MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WITH A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 7, 2018; AND (5) DENYING PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 101)
______________________________________________________________________________
This is a civil case in which pro se Plaintiff Michael D. McCain, Sr. (“McCain”), an inmate
in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (“ODRC”), asserts, inter
alia, civil rights claims against a great number of Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See doc.
52. Such claims arise from alleged conduct of Defendants occurring during McCain’s detention
at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution (“CCI”) beginning in early 2014, until his transfer to
Mansfield Correctional Institution (“MCC”) in April 2016. See doc. 52.
Presently before the Court are a number of motions, including Defendants’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings (doc. 95) and motions to stay a number of pretrial deadlines previously
set by the Court -- namely, the deadlines for discovery, the filing of dispositive motions, and the
assertion of qualified immunity (docs. 96, 99, 103). In response, McCain moves to compel
discovery responses, to strike Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and for the
imposition of sanctions for Defendants’ failure to respond to discovery. Docs. 97, 101. The

undersigned has carefully considered all of the foregoing, and the aforementioned motions are ripe
for decision.
McCain originally filed this case on April 13, 2015 (doc. 1) and subsequently filed an
amended complaint at the Court’s direction on February 13, 2017 (doc. 52). All Defendants were
served with process on or before June 12, 2017. Docs. 18, 20, 21, 24, 65, 67, 69. On January 8,
2018, the Court issued a Rule 16 Scheduling Order, Ordering that “motions . . . addressing the
. . . pleadings, if any, must be filed on or before March 1, 2018”; discovery be completed on or
before June 1, 2018; dispositive motions be filed on or before July 1, 2018; and motions raising
qualified immunity be filed on or before August 1, 2018. Id.
According to McCain, within a month after issuance of the Scheduling Order, he served
interrogatories and requests for the production of documents on Defendants on February 6, 2018.
Doc. 86-1. To date, Defendants have not responded to those written discovery requests. See doc.
98 at PageID 602-03. On April 6, 2018, McCain moved to compel discovery responses by
Defendants (doc. 86), and such motion was denied because McCain failed to certify that he
attempted to confer with Defendants’ attorney in good faith with regard to the overdue discovery
responses. Doc. 87. On April 23, 2018, McCain again moved to compel discovery responses (doc.
90), which the Court again denied after granting Defendants an extension of time, until May 30,
2018, to so respond. Doc. 92. The Court specifically Ordered that “Defendants must respond to
[McCain’s] discovery requests ON OR BEFORE MAY 30, 2018.” Id. (emphasis in original).
Defendants did not respond to McCain’s discovery requests by May 30, 2018 as Ordered.
Instead, on May 23, 2018, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 95) and
simultaneously moved to stay discovery pending a decision on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings (doc. 96). The undersigned finds Defendants’ request for a stay of discovery not welltaken for several reasons. First, while the undersigned would typically be responsive to such
2

requests pending disposition of Rule 12 motions, here, this case was pending for well over a year
on McCain’s amended complaint before the filing of Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion, and for well
over three years overall. See docs. 1, 52. Second, while Defendants anticipated the filing of a
Rule 12(c) motion as late as April 26, 2018, they did not seek a stay at that time and, instead,
sought only an extension of time to provide responses. See doc. 91. Third, instead of seeking a
stay of discovery at the time they anticipated the filing of a Rule 12(c) motion, they waited until
the eve of their extended discovery response deadline and the deadline for the completion of all
discovery to do so.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that good cause does not
support the requested stay and, in fact, the granting of Defendants’ request could potentially
encourage gamesmanship by parties in similar cases. Thus, Defendants’ motion for a stay of
discovery (doc. 96) is DENIED and the discovery period in this case, therefore, expired as of June
1, 2018. No further discovery other than that set forth in this Order or with subsequent leave of
Court shall be conducted in this case.
In that regard, McCain’s motion to compel (doc. 97) is GRANTED and Defendants are
ORDERED to serve complete responses to McCain’s written discovery requests within 14 days
from the entry of this Order. Because Defendants moved for a stay of discovery which, in many
other circumstances, would be granted in conjunction with the pendency of a Rule 12(c) motion,
the undersigned finds that sanctions are not warranted here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).
Accordingly, McCain’s motion for sanctions (doc. 101) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
to refile should Defendants fail to provide written discovery responses as Ordered herein.

3

For the same reasons, the Court also DENIES Defendants’ motions to stay the dispositive
motion deadline and the deadline for asserting the defenses of qualified immunity.1 Docs. 99,
103. Instead, in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS that Defendants may supplement their
motion for judgment on the pleadings with a motion for summary judgment on or before
September 7, 2018. Absent exceptional circumstances, the undersigned does not anticipate
granting any extensions of any of the aforementioned deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

August 6, 2018

1

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants did assert qualified immunity in their Rule 12(c) motion filed on May 23, 2018, albeit
in conclusory fashion. Doc. 95 at PageID 585.
4