Collins v. Bledsoe et al
Filing
118
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. 108 .) is DENIED. We note that the Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, (Doc. 107 .), which sought to extend discovery deadlines to June 2015. This motion is GRANTED insofar as the court will deem discovery requests propounded by the parties on or before June 30, 2015, to be timely. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on Septemer 2, 2015. (kjn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LARRY COLLINS,
Plaintiff
v.
B.A. BLEDSOE, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 3:12-CV-2244
(Judge Kosik)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Statement of Facts and of the Case
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights lawsuit involving an inmate’s excessive
force claims against some 14 prison staff arising out of the plaintiff’s removal from
a prison bus, and cell transfer in May of 2011.
This case now comes before us for consideration of a motion to compel filed
by the plaintiff, (Doc. 108.), which seeks further detailed responses from one
defendant, defendant Hicks, concerning who may have ordered Collins’ May 4, 2011,
cell transfer, the cell transfer which led to the inmate-staff encounter that forms the
basis for one of the excessive force claims in this lawsuit.
Defendant Hicks has now responded to this motion to compel, explaining that
he has no recollection of who gave him these instructions in May 2011, and,
therefore, cannot provide further detail on these matters. Because we find that a party
cannot produce that which they do not recall, the motion to compel will be denied.
II.
Discussion
Several basic guiding principles inform our resolution of the instant discovery
dispute. At the outset, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
motions to compel discovery, and provides that:
(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery
(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a
party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).
The scope of what type of discovery may be compelled under Rule 37 is
defined, in turn, by Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
provides as follows:
(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 ).
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
Rulings regarding the proper scope of discovery, and the extent to which
discovery may be compelled, are matters consigned to the court’s discretion and
judgment. Thus, it has long been held that decisions regarding Rule 37 motions are
“committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” DiGregorio v. First
Rediscount Corp., 506 F.2d 781, 788 (3d Cir. 1974). Similarly, issues relating to the
scope of discovery permitted under Rule 26 also rest in the sound discretion of the
Court. Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus,
a court’s decisions regarding the conduct of discovery, and whether to compel
disclosure of certain information, will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse
of discretion. Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983).
This far-reaching discretion extends to rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on
discovery matters. In this regard:
District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad
discretion in resolving discovery disputes. See Farmers & Merchs. Nat'l
Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572, 585
(D.N.J.1997). When a magistrate judge's decision involves a
discretionary [discovery] matter . . . , “courts in this district have
determined that the clearly erroneous standard implicitly becomes an
abuse of discretion standard.” Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224
F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D.Pa.2004) (citing Scott Paper Co. v. United States,
943 F.Supp. 501, 502 (E.D.Pa.1996)). Under that standard, a magistrate
judge's discovery ruling “is entitled to great deference and is reversible
3
only for abuse of discretion.” Kresefky v. Panasonic Commc'ns and
Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J.1996); see also Hasbrouck v.
BankAmerica Hous. Servs., 190 F.R.D. 42, 44-45 (N.D.N.Y.1999)
(holding that discovery rulings are reviewed under abuse of discretion
standard rather than de novo standard); EEOC v. Mr. Gold, Inc., 223
F.R.D. 100, 102 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (holding that a magistrate judge's
resolution of discovery disputes deserves substantial deference and
should be reversed only if there is an abuse of discretion).
Halsey v. Pfeiffer, No. 09-1138, 2010 WL 3735702, *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010).
This discretion is guided, however, by certain basic principles. Thus, at the
outset, it is clear that Rule 26's broad definition of that which can be obtained through
discovery reaches only “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense.” Therefore, valid claims of relevance and privilege still cabin and restrict
the court’s discretion in ruling on discovery issues. Furthermore, the scope of
discovery permitted by Rule 26 embraces all “relevant information” a concept which
is defined in the following terms: “Relevant information need not be admissible at
trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.”
A party moving to compel discovery bears the initial burden of proving the
relevance of the requested information. Morrison v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 203
F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D.Pa. 2001). Once that initial burden is met, “the party resisting
the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that
4
the requested discovery (1) does not come within the broad scope of relevance as
defined under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the
potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in
favor of broad disclosure.” In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, 261 F.R.D. 570, 573
(D.Kan. 2009).
One other immutable rule defines the court’s discretion when ruling on motions
to compel discovery. It is clear that the court cannot compel the production of things
that do not exist. Nor can the court compel the creation of evidence by parties who
attest that they do not possess the materials sought by an adversary in litigation. See,
e.g., AFSCME District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund v. Ortho-McNeilJanssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 08-5904, 2010 WL 5186088 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 21,
2010); Knauss v. Shannon, No. 08-1698, 2009 WL 975251 (M.D.Pa. April 9, 2009).
With these legal guideposts in mind, we turn to consideration of this motion to
compel.
With respect to the plaintiff’s discovery requests propounded upon defendant
Hicks, as we have noted, this court cannot compel the production of things that do not
exist. Nor can the court compel the creation of evidence by parties who attest that
they do not possess the materials sought by an adversary in litigation. See, e.g.,
AFSCME District Council 47 Health and Welfare Fund v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
5
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 08-5904, 2010 WL 5186088 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 21, 2010);
Knauss v. Shannon, No. 08-1698, 2009 WL 975251 (M.D.Pa. April 9, 2009).
Therefore, the defendant’s assertion that he cannot recall the information sought by
Collins four years after these events occurred compels us to deny these specific
requests. While we deny these particulars requests, we note that the parties have an
on-going responsibility to supplement their discovery disclosures. Rule 26 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes this obligation on all parties and provides
that:
(e) Supplementing Disclosures and Responses.
(1) In General. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a)--or
who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or
request for admission--must supplement or correct its disclosure or
response:
(A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect
the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the
additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known
to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing; or
(B) as ordered by the court
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Thus, while we deny these motions at this time in light of the
defendants’ response, all parties are directed to continue to comply with the
provisions of Rule 26(e) and make prompt disclosure of any additional relevant,
responsive materials which they may encounter in the course of this litigation.
6
III.
Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 108.) is
DENIED.1 We note that the Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Extension of Time
to Complete Discovery, (Doc. 107.), which sought to extend discovery deadlines to
June 2015. This motion is GRANTED insofar as the court will deem discovery
requests propounded by the parties on or before June 30, 2015, to be timely.
So ordered this 2d day of September, 2015.
.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
We note that Collins’ reply brief seems to raise other discovery issues in
this litigation. (Doc. 110.) To the extent that such issues exist they should be
presented to the court through a separate motion to compel.
1
7
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?