Rhines v. United States Of America
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 71 MOTION to Compel filed by Gary Rhines without prejudice at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 2, 2015. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY RHINES,
:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Defendant
:
Civil No. 3:12-CV-1601
(Judge Nealon)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is an action brought by Gary Rhines, an inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Allenwood, in White Deer, Pennsylvania. Along with several hundred other inmates,
Rhines sued the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act1 for injuries
allegedly sustained as a result of an incident of food poisoning that occurred at the
United States Penitentiary in Canaan, Pennsylvania in June 2011. Many of these
lawsuits have been resolved through settlement agreements; in Rhines’s case, the
parties engaged in mediation but the case did not settle. The United States does not
dispute that a salmonella outbreak occurred at USP-Canaan, and that a large number
1
28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq.
of inmates were sickened as a result. The United States does, however, contest
Rhines’s claims that he was actually sickened, or that he suffered any damages.
Rhines, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to compel the United
States to provide further answers or responses to two discovery requests that he
propounded in support of his claims. The United States has objected to each request,
and has provided Rhines with an explanation for why the requests are irrelevant or
overbroad, or otherwise objectionable. The United States has also explained
persuasively for the Court why Rhines’s discovery requests, as currently framed, are
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant, and we agree that Rhines’s motion
to compel should be denied at this time.2
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Relevant Legal Standards
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure supplies the scope and
limitations governing the use of discovery in a federal civil action:
The Court has provisionally granted Rhines’s request that he be appointed
counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 70.) As of the date of this order,
however, counsel willing to accept an appointment has not been identified. If
willing counsel is identified and enter their appearance in this case, Rhines will be
permitted to renew his motion to compel further production, provided that
Rhines’s counsel believes that such a motion is advisable and can articulate
persuasive reasons for the requests. However, as currently postured, Rhines’s
discovery requests have been adequately answered, and there is no basis to compel
the United States to provide further responses at this time.
2
2
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court
order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that
is relevant to any party’s claim or defense – including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and
location of any documents or other tangible things and the
identity and location of persons who know of any
discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order
discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule
26(b)(2)(C).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Issues relating to the scope of discovery permitted under the
Rules are to be resolved, almost exclusively, at the discretion of the Court.
Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). A court’s
decisions regarding the conduct of discovery will be disturbed only upon a showing
of an abuse of discretion. Marroquin-Manrizuez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir.
1983).
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically provides for the
use of written requests for the production of documents as part of the discovery
process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. The rule also sets forth the process by which the party
receiving the discovery request must respond, and authorizes that party to object to
particular requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).
3
Rule 37 authorizes a party to move to compel disclosure if the discovery
propounding discovery believes that it has received incomplete or inadequate answers
to discover authorized under Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. With respect specifically
to requests for production of documents and interrogatories, Rule 37 provides:
(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking
discovery may move for an order compelling an answer,
designation, production, or inspection. This motion may
be made if:
...
(iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted
under Rule 33; or
(iv) a party fails to respond that inspection will be
permitted – or fails to permit inspection – as requested
under Rule 34.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). Rule 37 further states that “[f]or purposes of this
subdivision (a), 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). Rule
37(a) further provides that if a court grants a motion to compel, it must require the
party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the moving party’s fees unless,
inter alia, the movant filed the motion without attempting in good faith to obtain the
discovery without resorting to court action, or where other circumstances make an
award of expenses unjustified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
4
B.
Rhines’s Discovery Requests
Rhines served a Request for Production of Documents upon the defendant on
or about October 14, 2014. The United States timely responded to the requests on
November 5, 2014. In its response, the United States objected that one request, for
pathology reports and related documentation “identifying the source of the salmonella
bacteria causing illness outbreak,” was irrelevant because the United States was not
contesting the fact that there was a salmonella outbreak on or around June 25, 2011,
and agreed that the United States is responsible for serving the food that caused the
outbreak. The United States objected to a second request for staff log books that
related to the salmonella outbreak and medical personnel visiting the prison in
response, asserting that the request was overbroad, vague, irrelevant, and offensive
to security concerns of the institution. Dissatisfied with the United States’ responses,
on December 1, 2014, Rhines filed the pending motion seeking to compel further
production.
1.
Documents Identifying the Source of the Food Poisoning
Outbreak are Irrelevant Because the United States Has
Acknowledged that a Salmonella Outbreak Occurred in June
2011, and That it is Responsible for the Outbreak
Rhines’s first request seeks further production of documents identifying the
source of the salmonella outbreak. The United States has objected that this request
5
is irrelevant, since there is no dispute in this case that there was a salmonella
outbreak, and that the United States is responsible for the outbreak because the prison
served chicken that was tainted with the bacteria. Rhines has responded to the United
States’ objection essentially by transmogrifying his original request for information
about the outbreak into one seeking information from his own medical records in
order to “show carelessness and unprofessionalism of food service employees.”
(Doc. 71, at 1.) The United States observes that it has already produced Rhines’s
medical records from 2011 through mid-2013, and thus his recent request that he be
provided this information (perhaps in lieu of information “identifying the source of
the salmonella bacteria causing illness outbreak”) is moot.
The Court agrees with the United States that Rhines’s discovery request, as
originally stated, is irrelevant because whether there was a salmonella outbreak at
USP-Canaan in June 2011 is not disputed, and the United States agrees that it is
responsible for the outbreak that indisputably occurred. Thus, we are unable to
perceive why Rhines would need to review documents that identified the source of
a food poisoning outbreak that the United States acknowledges occurred at the prison.
To the extent that Rhines has abandoned his original request in favor of one seeking
his own personal medical records, the United States has already provided these
6
documents to Rhines, and thus there would appear to be nothing further for the
United States to produce in response.
2.
Rhines Has Not Persuasively Shown Why He Should
Permitted to Discover Information from the D1 Staff Log
Books.
In his second request, Rhines seeks “any and all information from housing unit
D1 Staff Log Books relating to the salmonella [outbreak] at U.S.P. Canaan, on June
25, 2011.” The United States has objected to this request on the grounds that it is
overbroad, vague, irrelevant and “offensive to security concerns of the institution.”
(Doc. 73, at 3.) The United States observes that Rhines has argued that he only seeks
the staff log books for a two-week period in order to show “the time line medical staff
visited the housing unit” and to show “staff’s input, their thoughts and comments on
the outbreak.” (Id.)
It appears that Rhines may be seeking this information to support his claims
that he was actually sickened as a result of the outbreak, and perhaps is seeking the
staff reports to obtain evidence that could show he had complained of being sick, and
that he was seen by medical personnel. Nevertheless, Rhines has not adequately
articulated why he needs the requested information, and the Court is largely left to
speculate on the purpose behind Rhines’s request. The United States has also noted
that staff log books such as those that Rhines seeks here contain sensitive information
7
and internal protocols that the Bureau of Prisons safeguards carefully for security
reasons. Rhines has not adequately countered this legitimate basis for withholding
the log books, and his meager argument in support of his request is not sufficient to
overcome the United States’ legitimate reasons for withholding the documents
sought. Rhines’s motion to compel further response will, therefore, be denied at this
time.3
III.
ORDER
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the
plaintiff’s motion to compel the United States to provide a further response to the
plaintiff’s third request for production of documents (Doc. 71.) is DENIED without
prejudice at this time.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
As noted above, this order denying Rhines’s motion to compel will be
entered without prejudice to Rhines renewing his request with the assistance of
counsel, provided that counsel willing to represent Rhines is identified, and
provided that counsel believes that there is a sound basis for renewing the request.
3
8
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?