Savage v. Troutt et al

Filing 96

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 84 Motion to Compel; granting in part 86 Motion to Stay Case; denying 89 Motion for Sanctions; granting 93 Motion for Leave. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B Goodwin on 08/31/2017. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KENT G. SAVAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY TROUTT et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-670-HE

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Compel
discovery responses (Doc. No. 84), Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 86), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 89), and Plaintiff’s motion requesting leave to file an
amended response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 93).
Motion to Compel
In Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Troutt has
repeatedly failed to provide “adequate” responses to seven Requests for Admission (6-9,
12, 19-20) and twenty-one Interrogatories (1-11, 13-22). See generally Pl.’s Fourth Mot.
to Compel at 1, 2-12. Defendant Troutt has filed a response objecting to Plaintiff’s motion.
Def.’s Obj. (Doc. No. 87) at 1-5. After careful consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. No. 84) should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as specified
below.
Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties “may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2016).
Plaintiff’s sole surviving legal claim challenges Defendant Troutt’s alleged failure to
properly treat Plaintiff’s multiple sclerosis (“MS”), neuropathic pain, and severe
constipation while serving as Plaintiff’s prison physician at the James Crabtree
Correctional Center (“JCCC”).

See Order Adopting R. & R (Doc. No. 63) at 5-7

(concluding that these allegations stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference
claim against Defendant Troutt); R. & R. (Doc. No. 59) at 5-8, 15-22.
A.

Discovery Requests Relevant to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim or
Defendant Troutt’s Defense(s)

The Court finds that the following discovery requests are relevant to Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claim or to Defendant Troutt’s defense(s) and are proportional to the
needs of this case:
 Requests for Admission 6, 7, and 12; and
 Interrogatories 5, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 22.
Pl.’s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 2, 3-4, 8-9, 10-12. The Court overrules Defendant’s
generalized objections that certain of these requests are “duplicative,” “vague,” or
“speculative.” See Pl.’s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 2, 4, 8, 11-12 (citing Requests for
Admission 7, 9, 12, and Interrogatories 11, 13, 20, 22); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4),
36(a)(6). Defendant’s answers to all ten discovery requests, to the extent he did not object
to them, are incomplete or non-responsive. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
The Court also finds that Request for Admission 8, as narrowed by Plaintiff in his
motion to compel, is relevant to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim or to Defendant
2

Troutt’s defense(s) and is proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant’s objection that
this “request seeks information not likely to lead to relevant information,” Def.’s Obj. at 2,
is overruled. See Witt v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 307 F.R.D. 554, 561 (D. Colo. 2014).
Accordingly, Defendant shall answer Request for Admission 8, as modified:
 “[Defendant] Troutt did provide gabapentin (Neurontin) to other JCCC
inmates while refusing to provide it to Plaintiff.”
Pl.’s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 3; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Defendant is not required
to provide any identifying or other sensitive information about other individuals in
answering this Request for Admission.
B.

Discovery Requests Unrelated to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claim or
Defendant Troutt’s Defense(s)

The Court finds that the following discovery requests fall outside the scope
permitted by Rule 26(b)(1):
 Requests for Admission 9, 19, and 20; and
 Interrogatories 1-4, 6-10, 15-18, and 21.
Pl.’s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 3-4, 5-11; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).
Most of these requests seek information related to Plaintiff’s legal claims that have
been dismissed from this action, non-parties’ medical conditions or treatment, or nonparties’ lawsuits and complaints against Defendant Troutt. Additionally, Plaintiff’s
requests seeking information about whether gabapentin is “addictive” (Request for
Admission 9) and about Defendant Troutt’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s substance-abuse and

3

disciplinary history (Interrogatories 6, 7) concern matters that are not relevant to
Plaintiff’s surviving Eighth Amendment claim or Defendant Troutt’s defense(s).
C.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Compel discovery responses (Doc. No. 84) is hereby
GRANTED in part as to:
 Requests for Admission 6, 7, and 12;
 Request for Admission 8, as modified; and
 Interrogatories 5, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 22.
Defendant Troutt shall serve his answers or responses to these requests on Plaintiff, and
with the Court, on or before September 21, 2017. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED
as to:


Requests for Admission 9, 19, and 20; and



Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21.
Sanctions

In both Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff asks
the Court to sanction Defendant Troutt for his or his counsel’s alleged failure to obey an
order directing Defendant Troutt to provide or permit discovery. See Pl.’s Mot. to Stay at
1 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iv)); Pl.’s Mot. for Sanctions at 1-2 (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 37). The Court has not issued any such order. On March 2, 2017, the Court issued
an order directing Defendant Troutt “to respond to” Plaintiff’s pending “motion to compel
on or before March 10, 2017.” Order for Resp. (Doc. No. 85) at 1; see Pl.’s Fourth Mot.

4

to Compel (Doc. No. 84). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the Order for Response neither
“granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel” nor directed Defendant Troutt “to answer [the
disputed] discovery” requests. Pl.’s Mot. for Sanctions at 2; Pl.’s Mot. to Stay at 2.
Defendant Troutt filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion before his deadline expired. Def.’s
Obj. (Doc. No. 87) at 1-5 (filed Mar. 10, 2017). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay
(Doc. No. 86) is DENIED to the extent it requests sanctions against Defendant Troutt and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 89) is DENIED in its entirety.
Stay / Extension / Supplemental Response
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 86), Plaintiff asserts that he needs additional
discovery before he can adequately respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and perhaps file his own motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did, however, file a
response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 92). Further, in
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave (Doc. No. 93), Plaintiff submits additional materials in
response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and asks that those materials be
considered along with his prior Response.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave (Doc. No. 93) is GRANTED. The materials submitted
with Document No. 93 will be considered as part of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 86) is construed as a motion for extension and
GRANTED in part, as follows. In light of the additional discovery that Defendant Troutt
has been ordered to provide, Plaintiff is granted leave to submit a supplemental response
to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s supplemental response, if he
5

chooses to file one, must be submitted on or before October 12, 2017. Additionally,
Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for summary judgment, if he chooses to do so, is
extended to October 12, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2017.

6