Sears v. Mooney et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 37 , 42 , 44 , 46 and 50 . See Memorandum for further details.Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 4/12/18. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD SEARS,
Plaintiff
v.
VINCENT MOONEY, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:17-cv-00050
(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 37), motion
for leave to amend motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 42), amended motion for leave to
amend motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 44), amended motion to compel discovery (Doc.
No. 46), and motion to compel discovery to Plaintiff’s amended second set of interrogatories and
requests for documents (Doc. No. 51). Defendants have filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s
motions. (Doc. Nos. 41, 49.)
I.

BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional

Institution at Albion, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion”), filed a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against, inter alia, the Chief Grievance Coordinator of the Department of Corrections, the
Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township (“SCI-Coal”), the Facility
Grievance Coordinator at SCI-Coal, and several correctional officers employed at SCI-Coal.
(Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff raises multiple claims relating to the conditions of his confinement while
confined at SCI-Coal. (Id.)
On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 33), which is the
operative document in this proceeding. Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on
September 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 34.) On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel
1

Defendants to answer “fully” a number of interrogatories and to produce a number of documents.
(Doc. Nos. 37-39.) On February 21, 2018, Defendants filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion to compel discovery, maintaining that the motion should be denied as moot because
Defendants have answered Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Doc. No. 41.) Alternatively,
Defendants argue that they have appropriately objected to certain discovery requests. (Id.)
On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his motion to compel
discovery. (Doc. No. 42.) In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides that he did not attach
Defendants’ responses to his discovery to his original motion to compel, and therefore, seeks
leave to amend his motion to compel to attach Defendants’ discovery responses. (Id.) On March
19, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for leave to amend his motion to compel, again
providing that he failed to attach Defendants’ discovery responses to his motion. (Doc. No. 44.)
Simultaneously filed with his amended motion for leave to amend his motion to compel, Plaintiff
filed his amended motion to compel, attaching Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests.
(Doc. Nos. 46-48.) Upon reviewing the amended motion to compel (Doc. No. 46), the only
differences between it and Plaintiff’s original motion to compel (Doc. No. 37), are the attached
Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and a reply to Defendants’ brief in
opposition. (Doc. No. 46.) Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s original motion to
compel discovery (Doc. No. 37), and original motion for leave to amend his motion to compel
discovery (Doc. No. 42), as moot, and grant Plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to amend his
motion to compel (Doc. No. 44). The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel
discovery and motion to compel discovery to Plaintiff’s amended second set of interrogatories
and production of documents. (Doc. Nos. 46-48, 50.)

2

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may seek a court

order compelling disclosures or discovery of the materials sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “The
moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought to a particular claim or
defense.” Montanez v. Tritt, Civ. No. 14-1362, 2016 WL 3035310, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 26,
2016). “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.” Id. (citing Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255, 258 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
It is well-established that rulings concerning the proper scope of discovery and the extent
to which discovery may be compelled are within the Court’s discretion. See Wisniewski v.
Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). The court’s decision regarding the
conduct of discovery, including whether to compel disclosure, will only be disturbed on a
showing of an abuse of discretion. See Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d
Cir. 1983).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “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). Rule 26(b)(1) provides for a
broad scope of discovery. As a consequence, courts often - and appropriately - apply liberal
treatment to discovery rules. See, e.g., Clements v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 300 F.R.D.
225, 226 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (citing Great W. Life Assurance Co. v. Levithan, 152 F.R.D. 494, 497
(E.D. Pa. 1994)). Nonetheless, a “valid claim[] of relevance or privilege” operates to restrict a
court’s otherwise broad discretion under Rule 26(b)(1). McConnell v. Canadian Pac. Realty Co.,
280 F.R.D. 188, 192-93 (M.D. Pa. 2011).

3

III.

DISCUSSION
In the instant amended motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 46), Plaintiff sets forth

sixteen (16) interrogatories and nine (9) requests for production of documents that he claims are
relevant and necessary for the litigation of his case. (Doc. No. 46.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks
an order to compel Defendants to “answer fully” interrogatory numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling Defendants
to produce nine (9) separate items in his document request. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s motion to
compel responses to his amended second set of interrogatories and production of documents
seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond more fully to discovery requests numbers 2125. (Doc. No. 50). Defendants provide that Plaintiff’s motions are now moot because they have
subsequently supplemented their responses and have provided Plaintiff with 915 pages of
responsive documents (Doc. No. 41), and that they will be further supplementing their responses
once a signed verification is returned to counsel. (Doc. No. 49.)
Having fully reviewed Plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production of
documents, and Defendants’ answers and productions thereto, it appears that the majority of
Plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ answers and production of documents are his mere
dissatisfaction with Defendants’ responses. However, given Defendants’ contention that
Plaintiff’s motion is moot because they have subsequently answered each request and provided
responsive documents to the requests, and are in the process of providing Plaintiff with
additional supplemental responses (Doc. Nos. 41, 49), the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions as
moot. Should Plaintiff contest that his motions have been rendered moot by Defendants’
subsequent answers and document production, he will be afforded an opportunity to refile his

4

motions to compel. However, he is cautioned that should he refile his motions to compel, he
must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought as to each defendant and claim. See
Montanez, 2016 WL 3035310, at *2. Moreover, to the extent that a discovery dispute remains,
the Court strongly encourages the parties to attempt to facilitate a resolution of the same prior to
filing additional motions to compel.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 37), and

motion for leave to amend his motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 42), will be denied as
moot. Plaintiff’s amended motion for leave to amend his motion to compel (Doc. No. 44), will
be granted. Plaintiff’s amended motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 46) and motion to
compel discovery to Plaintiff’s amended second set of interrogatories and production of
documents (Doc. No. 50), will be denied as moot. An appropriate Order follows.

5