Hampton v. Wetzel
Filing
96
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 67 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Shawn Hampton. (See memo for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 3/7/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN HAMPTON,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-1367
(Chief Judge Conner)
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Shawn Hampton (“Hampton”), an inmate currently confined at the
Rockview State Correctional Institution in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania (“SCIRockview”), commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The
matter is proceeding via an amended complaint, wherein Hampton alleges that
defendants‟ failure to provide him adequate medical services violated his
constitutional rights, and his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 13). The remaining defendants are Wetzel, Williams,
Harpster, Glunt and McHenry (collectively, “Commonwealth defendants”), and
Bernard and Koltay, physician assistants at SCI-Rockview.
Presently pending before the court is Hampton‟s motion (Doc. 67) to compel
discovery. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the motion.
I.
Motion to Compel Discovery
A.
Standard of Review
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may
seek a court order compelling disclosure or discovery of the materials sought. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a). The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the
information sought to a particular claim or defense. The burden then shifts to the
opposing party, who must demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request
does not fall within the broad scope of discovery or is otherwise privileged or
improper. Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255, 258 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
Generally, courts afford considerable latitude in discovery in order to ensure
that litigation proceeds with “the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts
before trial.” Hickman v. Taylor, 349 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). The procedural rule
defining the scope and limits of discovery provides that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party‟s claim
or defense . . . . Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “[A]ll relevant material is
discoverable unless an applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. The
presumption that such matter is discoverable, however, is defeasible.” Pearson v.
Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, the court may limit discovery
where: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can
be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or
less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain
2
the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside
the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
B.
Discussion
Hampton served interrogatories on each of the Commonwealth defendants as
well as requests for production of documents. The Commonwealth defendants
assert that they answered all interrogatories, and submitted responses to the
requests for production of documents. (Doc. 76). The Commonwealth defendants
acknowledge that some of their responses contain objections, which they assert are
meritorious. (Id.)
In the instant motion to compel discovery, Hampton states, “as of the date of
this filing, . . . , PLAINTIFF HAS STILL NOT RECEIVED THE REQUESTED
DOCUMENTS.” (Doc. 67, ¶ 22). The Commonwealth defendants argue that, in
light of this statement, Hampton‟s motion was prematurely filed. The court agrees.
At the time Hampton filed his motion to compel, he acknowledges that he had not
received or reviewed the requested information. Thus, Hampton could not possibly
claim that the Commonwealth defendants did not provide him with the requested
information.
Hampton further complains that the Commonwealth defendants provided
responses to the requests for production to the Superintendent‟s Assistant at SCIRockview, rather than providing the documents directly to him. (Doc. 67, ¶¶ 7-8).
The Commonwealth defendants represent that they have made the requested
discovery available to Hampton in accordance with the institutional requirements.
(Doc. 76, at 3). The court finds that this method of production provides inmates
3
with a reasonable amount of time to examine and inspect requested documents, in
accordance with Department of Corrections‟ policies. See Victor v. Varrano, 2012
WL 1514845 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (finding that requiring an inmate to submit an Inmate
Request to Staff to the Superintendent‟s Assistant to examine documents “is a
fitting and proper procedure for [an inmate] to follow in securing access to [his]
medical records”).
Hampton also asserts that the Commonwealth defendants have provided
inadequate responses to his interrogatories. (Doc. 67, ¶ 5). Hampton does not
indicate which interrogatory responses he deems inadequate. In response, the
Commonwealth defendants state that they provided answers to nearly all
interrogatories, including answers accompanying their objections, and have
produced 391 pages of documents. (Doc. 76, at 3, 5). The court accepts defendants‟
representation that they have provided answers to Hampton‟s interrogatories.
Upon consideration of Hampton‟s blanket request for answers to his
interrogatories, the court will not issue a general order directing the defendants to
re-answer every interrogatory posed.
Consequently, the motion to compel discovery will be denied.
II.
Request for Sanctions
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 11 is intended to discourage the filing of
frivolous, unsupported, or unreasonable claims by “impos[ing] on counsel a duty to
look before leaping and may be seen as a litigation version of the familiar railroad
crossing admonition to „stop, look, and listen.‟” Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788
F.2d 151, 157 (3d Cir. 1986). Specifically, Rule 11 requires that an attorney certify
4
that any pleading, written motion or other paper presented to the court is not
presented for any improper purpose such as to harass or increase the costs of
litigation, and the legal contentions contained “are warranted by existing law or by
a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing
law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(1), (2). Rule 11 sanctions are “aimed at curbing abuses
of the judicial system,” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 397 (1990), and
“intended to discourage the filing of frivolous, unsupported, or unreasonable
claims,” Leuallen v. Borough of Paulsboro, 180 F. Supp. 2d 615, 618 (D.N.J. 2002).
A Rule 11 analysis requires the court to first determine whether the party
filing the Rule 11 motion complied with the “safe harbor” provision of Rule 11(c)(2).
Under that provision, a party cannot file a motion for sanctions until it first presents
the motion to the offending party, and allows 21 days for the other party to
withdraw or correct the challenged issue. In re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 542
F.3d 90, 99 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2)). Further, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2), “[a] motion for sanctions must be made
separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that
allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2).
Hampton‟s request for sanctions is procedurally inadequate because it was
not made separately from any other motion, and there is no indication that it was
ever served on defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(2). Consequently, the request
for sanctions will be denied.
5
III.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Hampton‟s motion (Doc. 67) to compel discovery and
request for sanctions will be denied.
An appropriate order shall issue.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated:
March 7, 2017
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?