Collins v. Bledsoe et al
Filing
119
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motions to compel further responses to document requests (Doc. 91 .) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The defendants shall undertake further review of BOP re cords to determine whether any potentially responsive documents exist that indicate actual findings of misconduct on the part of defendant Fleming, R. Johnson, or T. Johnson relating to the treatment of inmates. If any such documents exist, the defen dants shall provide them to the Court in camera within 30 days of the date of this order so that a determination can be made as to whether they should be produced in whole or in part to Collins. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. In addition, Collinss motion to compel defendant Hicks to provide further answers to interrogatories (Doc. 108.) is DENIED in its entirety. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 7, 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.
INTRODUCTION
This is a civil action brought by Larry Collins, an inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, currently incarcerated in the Special Management Unit
(SMU) at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg (USP-Lewisburg). Collins
initiated this Bivens1 action on November 9, 2012, asserting a number of
constitutional claims arising out of incidents alleged to have occurred at USPLewisburg between May 3, 2011, and May 5, 2011. Collins brought claims against
14 staff members at USP-Lewisburg, alleging that they used excessive force against
him and were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety during the course of a
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
1
use of force while removing from a bus, during a forced cell move, and through the
use of ambulatory restraints. Collins also claims that the defendants falsified restraint
check forms, medical records, and incident reports relating to these alleged events.
(Doc. 1, Compl.) On September 30, 2014, the Court dismissed Collins’s claims for
specific monetary damages and declaratory relief, as well as claims he had brought
for verbal harassment, conspiracy, and filing false reports to cover up alleged
constitutional violations, as well as claims for money damages brought with respect
to Incident Report No. 2158647. (Doc. 71.) What remains in this case are Collins’s
claims for excessive force, unlawful conditions of confinement, and denial of medical
care.
Now pending before the Court is Collins’s motion to compel the defendants to
produce additional responses to discovery requests that he propounded.
The
defendants have responded to these requests, by producing some documents and
materials that are responsive, some of which have been redacted for privacy or
security concerns; and in some cases, objecting to the requests as irrelevant, overly
broad, or otherwise infringing upon valid penological interests. Asserting that their
production in response to Collins’s requests has been adequate and in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that their objections to certain aspects
of Collins’s requests are justified, the defendants oppose the motion.
2
Collins filed a brief in support of his motion, and another brief purportedly to
oppose the defendants’ brief responding to the motion to compel. However, in his
briefs, Collins fails to respond in any persuasive fashion to the defendants’ assertions
regarding the adequacy of their production or the merits of their objections to further
disclosure. Instead, he has stated a general objection to the defendants’ invocation
of privilege, but has otherwise merely restated his discovery requests, and demanded
further responses.
For the following reasons, upon consideration of Collins’s requests, the
production made in response, and the tailored and discrete objections lodged, we find
that the motion to compel must be denied in most respects. Out of an abundance of
caution, we will direct the defendants to undertake a further review of their records
to determine whether potentially responsive documents to a properly narrowed
request may be identified, as we explain further below.
II.
BACKGROUND
Collins has served numerous discovery requests upon the defendants, and as
the documents attached to the parties’ attest, the defendants have responded with
responses and objections. On January 16, 2015, Collins filed a motion to compel
further production based on his attempts to resolve objections that he sent to the
defendants’ counsel on or around January 2, 2015. (Doc. 91.) In the motion, Collins
3
seeks entry of an order compelling discovery from defendants Hudson, Fleming, R.
Johnson, T. Johnson, R. Casilla, C. Lytle, G. Gaston, S. Prutzman and K. Gemberling.
(Id.) In the motion, Collins simply restates the requests that Collins had submitted
to the defendants, and does not explain what about the defendant’s objections Collins
believes is improper. Indeed, Collins’s brief does not actually identify or even
discuss the specific requests that he provided to the defendants. (Doc. 92.) Instead,
he offers a very general and, as it turns out, inaccurate claim that the defendants had
objected to further production on the basis of privilege. (Id.)
Collins’s letter to defendants’ counsel is marginally more helpful. In it, he
complains that some of the materials that he was provided were not sufficiently
responsive to his requests, and he complains that some of the materials were redacted,
although it is not clear why he believes the redaction is problematic. He further
attempts to clarify some of his requests. (Doc. 91, at 8.) In all other respects, the
letter recasts Collins’s requests that were propounded previously, but fails to explain
why the responses were insufficient. Collins also did not attempt to narrow or limit
the scope of his requests.
4
In his subsequent motion and brief, (Doc. 108.), Collins focuses on
interrogatories that he sent seeking responses from defendant Hicks.2 This motion is
also filled largely with generalities, and the defendants have responded in order to
explain the answers that were provided in response to the questions posed in the
interrogatories, and to explain why no further responses are possible. (Doc. 111.)
III.
DISCUSSION
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines both the scope
and limitations governing the use of discovery in a federal civil action:
(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).
The Court construed Hicks’s second motion to compel further responses
to interrogatories issued to defendant Hicks as a combined motion to compel and
brief in support, and we consider it together with Collins’s prior motion to compel
the defendants to produce additional documents. (Doc. 91.)
2
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Collins’s motion, and the defendants’ response in
opposition to this motion, call upon the Court to exercise its authority under Rule 26
of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure to regulate discovery in this case. Issues
relating to the scope of discovery permitted under the Rules rest in the sound
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-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699
F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983).
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 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.”
6
Applying these benchmark standards, we now turn to the motion before the
Court, and the discovery requests to which it relates, beginning with the document
requests.
A.
Document Requests
Collins has requested “A copy of the Z-Block Log Book at USP Lewisburg
recorded on May 3rd and 4th, 2011.” (Doc. 103, Ex. 1, Def. Hudson’s Resps. and
Objs. to Pl.’s First Request for Production of Documents at 3.) These documents
were produced. (Id., at 3, Attach A (Bates Nos. DEF-00001 to DEF-000012).) There
appears to be nothing further to produce, and Collins has not explained how this
response was in any was deficient. In his second request, Collins seeks “A copy of
D-Block Log Book at USP Lewisburg record on May 4, 2011.” This document was
also produced. (Id., at 3, Attach. B (Bates Nos. DEF-00013 to DEF-000018).) These
two documents were redacted in order to safeguard the privacy rights of other inmates
at USP-Lewisburg, and Collins has not explained how this redaction is improper, and
we do not find it to have been.
Collins also seems to be attempting to amend his discovery request through
subsequent letters to the defendants’ counsel. (Doc. 91, at 8.) Thus, Collins stated
that he was seeking production of log books with staff signatures so he could
determine which staff members entered the units in question. The defendants
7
provided Collins with the staff roster, which identified all staff members who had
been assigned to the cell blocks on May 3 and May 4, 2011. (Doc. 103, Ex. 1 at 3,
Attach C (Bates Nos. DEF-000019 to DEF-000034).) The defendants also provided
Collins with documents called “Unit Sign-in Logs” for both D- and Z-Blocks for May
1, 2011 through May 7, 2011. (Id., Ex. 2, Supp. Discovery Resp. (Bates Nos. DEF000261 to DEF-000266).)
In Collins’s third request, he sought, any and all documents showing who was
on duty in D-Block at 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. at USP Lewisburg on May 4, 2011.
(Doc. 103, Ex.1, at 3.) The fourth request seeks the same information for Z-Block on
May 3 and May 4, 2011. (Id., at 4.) In response the defendants produced the Daily
Assignment Roster for USP-Lewisburg for each of these consecutive days. (Id.,
Attach. C (Bates Nos. DEF-00019 to DEF-000034).) The defendants redacted each
of the rosters to reveal only the names of those staff members who were assigned to
D- and Z-Blocks, where Collins was confined, since the defendants maintain that the
identities of all other staff at the prison on those dates would be irrelevant to his
claims even under the broad relevance standard prescribed by Rule 26, and because
to provide such unlimited information Collins would present security concerns. We
find nothing improper about the defendants’ production of these documents, or in the
tailored manner in which they were limited.
8
Collins also complains that the defendants failed to respond sufficiently with
respect to document requests relating to defendant Fleming, who has since retired
from the Bureau of Prisons. In the plaintiff’s first request to this defendant, he asked
for any and all instructions, notes reports, memoranda, and internal communications
concerning plaintiff’s ability or inability to walk prior to and including the dates of
May 3rd and 4th of 2011. (Doc. 103, Ex. 3, at 3.) The defendants objected to the
request on the grounds of relevance, vagueness, and overbreadth, but responded
nevertheless to provide medical records that were readily available through the BOP’s
computerized system of medical records, and notified Collins that the response would
be supplemented if paper medical records were obtained. The defendants also
objected to the production of records from before December 6, 2006, on the grounds
that records from before this point were so far removed as to be irrelevant to the
claims in this case. (Id., Attach A (Bates Nos. DEF-000110-000173).)
Collins next requested production of “Any and all instructions, notes, reports,
memoranda, and internal communications concerning plaintiff’s being a violent
prisoner against staff starting with the date he was brought into the Federal Bureau
of Prisons back in 1977 to May 3, 2011 and May 4, 2011.” The defendants objected
to this request, again on grounds of relevance, vagueness and overbreadth, but
nevertheless produced over 80 pages of materials relevant to this response pertaining
9
to Collins’s history as a violent inmate. (Doc. 103, Ex. 3, Attach. B (Bates Nos. DEF000174 to DEF-000260).)
In his letter to defendants’ counsel, Collins sought to clarify these requests,
stating that he wished to know the information that may have been provided
specifically to defendant Fleming concerning his inability to walk, and his history of
violence as an inmate in the federal prison system, during the relevant time periods
he identified. (Doc. 91, at 8.) The defendants have responded by noting that all of
the information that is in the custody of the BOP is contained within Collins’s Central
File, to which defendant Fleming would have had access during his employment,
although it is difficult if not impossible to know which, if any, documents Fleming
may have actually examined during that time. Thus, having clarified the documents,
their location, and the fact that Fleming would have had access to them, the
defendants have not produced additional materials in response to the requests, and
have represented that they are unable to do so.
In all other respects, Collins’s letter to counsel simply restates his requests with
regard to those requests directed specifically to Fleming. (Doc. 91, at 2, 9.) In this
regard, Collins seeks entry of an order compelling Fleming to produce:
c.
Any and all documents, grievances, complaints received by defendant
B.A. Bledsoe or his agents at USP Lewisburg concerning the
10
mistreatment of inmates by defendant Fleming, and any memoranda,
investigative files, or other documents created in response to such
complaints since January 1, 2005. (Request No. 3 to Fleming.)
d.
Any and all reports, notes, grievances, complaints, or other documents
relating to the death of an inmate at USP Lewisburg, be it suicide or
otherwise, where defendant Fleming was directly involved or his named
was mentioned during his tenure at USP Lewisburg and entire
employment with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (Request No. 4 to
Fleming.)
e.
Any and all reports, documents notes of the number of “forced cell
moves” made by defendant Fleming during his tenure at USP
Lewisburg. (Request No. 5 to Fleming.)
Although Collins suggests that the defendants objected on the basis of
privilege, this is incorrect. The defendants instead objected to the nature, scope and
relevance of the requests. (Doc. 103, Ex. 3, at 4-5.) With respect to Request No. 3,
which concerned complaints that may have been directed to Warden Bledsoe
regarding Fleming’s alleged mistreatment of inmates between January 2005 and May
5, 2011, the defendants objected by asserting that the request was overly broad and
unduly burdensome. The defendants also asserted that thousands of grievances are
11
filed annually, and it would accordingly be burdensome or impossible to search all
of them for a particular staff member. (Id.) We agree with this, but nevertheless find
that a narrower request could potentially be relevant, and could be undertaken without
undue burden.
In some circumstances inmates may be entitled to discover information of
similar past practices or alleged conduct, or that is calculated to show a habit or
routine on the part of corrections defendants, see, e.g., Frails v. City of New York,
236 F.R.D. 116, 117-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (collecting cases). However, we are also
mindful that, as the Court in Frails recognized, “[u]nsubstantiated allegations of
misconduct that are unrelated to the claims raised in this case are not relevant to
plaintiff’s [ ] claim.” Id. at 118. To date, the defendants have not opposed Collins’s
request on relevancy grounds, but have instead merely claimed without sufficient
explanation that it would be impossible to identify any potentially responsive
materials within their possession. Mindful that discovery of the type requested in
Request No. 3 may potentially be relevant to the plaintiff’s claims in this case, and
out of an abundance of caution, the Court will direct the defendants to undertake a
narrower review of BOP records to determine whether there exist documents
indicating any agency finding of actual misconduct on Fleming’s part.
12
We agree with the defendants, and with the court in Frails, that mere
unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct have no relevance to Collins’s claims.
However, if Fleming’s employee file contains any actual findings of misconduct that
could come within the scope of Collins’s discovery request, those documents could
be relevant and might be subject to production. Accordingly, the defendants shall be
directed to undertake a review of BOP records to determine whether any documents
in Fleming’s employee file indicate an actual finding of misconduct on his part, and
any potentially responsive documents identified through this review shall be provided
to the Court in camera within 30 days from the date of this decision so that a
determination may be made about whether they should be produced to Collins.
Regarding Request No. 4, which concerned documents relating in any way to
any inmate death at USP-Lewisburg where Fleming’s name was mentioned or in
which he was “directly involved,” the defendants asserted that the request was not
relevant to Collins’s claims and, in any event, would be extremely burdensome to
answer since defendant Fleming worked in a variety of BOP institutions over a 20year career. We agree with the defendants, particularly regarding the lack of apparent
relevance to Collins’s own claims. We cannot perceive how seeking documents
bearing defendant Fleming’s name relating in some way to other inmate deaths within
USP-Lewisburg or other BOP facilities is relevant to the remaining claims in this
13
case, and find no basis to compel further response to this request, or to put the
defendants to the burden of attempting to identify whether any such documents exist
given the lack of relevancy to this case. Moreover, we have already directed that the
defendants undertake review of Fleming’s file for documents evidencing actual
findings of misconduct, if any, which would likely encompass any potentially
responsive and relevant documents relating to this request.
Finally, the defendants objected to Request No. 5, which seeks information
regarding the number of forced cell moves that defendant Fleming made during this
time as an officer at USP-Lewisburg. The defendants cast the request as vague and
overly broad, and maintained that it would be unduly burdensome to respond,
apparently because to determine whether Fleming had participated in every forced
cell move would necessitate review of more than 1,000 reportable incidents, which
itself may also insufficiently state Fleming’s involvement in other, unreported
matters. We agree that mere information regarding forced cell moves in which
Fleming may have had involvement during his tenure at USP-Lewisburg is overly
broad and has little apparent relevance that would justify requiring defendants’
counsel to undertake such a review. Moreover, as we previously noted, mere
allegations of misconduct regarding defendant Fleming or any other defendant would
not have sufficient relevance to the claims in this case that would justify ordering
14
production. Instead, the Court expects that any documents that are potentially
responsive to this request, and appropriately narrowed, would be uncovered during
the search we will order to determine whether Fleming’s employee file contains
findings of actual misconduct on his part.
Collins has also propounded discovery requests on defendants R. Johnson and
T. Johnson seeking, without any limitation, discovery materials pertaining to all twohour restraint checks, and concerning all grievances or complaints that have been
made by inmates regarding these defendants’ alleged mistreatment of them during
their entire employment with the BOP. (Doc. 91, at 2-3, 9.) The defendants objected
that the requests were irrelevant, vague, and burdensome because the requests were
not limited temporally, and were not designed to obtain potentially relevant
information with respect to Collins’s remaining claims. (Doc. 103, Ex. 4, Defs’ Objs.
to Pl.’s First Request for Production of Documents to Defs. R. Johnson and T.
Johnson.) Collins has undertaken no effort to narrow his claims. However,
consistent with the manner in which we narrowed the discovery requests propounded
upon defendant Fleming, we will direct the defendants to undertake a review of BOP
records to determine whether any documents exist that indicate any actual findings
of misconduct on the part of either defendant R. Johnson or T. Johnson, and to submit
these results to the Court for in camera inspection within 30 days.
15
Next Collins has sought to compel defendants Casilla, Lytle and Gaston to
provide “[a]ny and all FIFTEEN MINUTE RESTRAINT CHECK documents” written
by any of these defendants during their “tenure at USP Lewisburg and entire
employment with the BOP,” as well as “any and all grievances, complaints, or other
documents created by the mistreatment of inmates” during the defendants’
employment. (Doc. 103, Ex. 5, Defs.’ Objs. to Pl.’s First Request for Production of
Documents to Defs. R. Casilla, C. Lytle and B. Gaston.) The defendants objected that
the document request is unreasonably overbroad and is not designed to obtain
relevant evidence. Collins has taken no steps to clarify or narrow this request, and
we find no basis to compel further response, particularly in light of Collins’s failure
to address the defects that are manifest in this overly broad request.
Collins also seeks an order compelling defendants Prutzman and Gemberling
to produce grievances or other documents relating to the mistreatment of inmates, or
to the death of inmates, that name either defendant between January 1, 2005, to May
5, 2011. (Doc. 91, at 4-5.) The defendants objected to the request on the grounds that
it is overbroad, and burdensome. However, the defendants also affirmatively
represented to Collins that neither defendant Gemberling nor Prutzman have
sustained any misconduct findings concerning their treatment of inmates. Given this
representation, and because we find no basis to compel the defendants to produce any
16
grievances or other complaints from inmates that are nothing more than allegations
or assertions in other contexts, we find there is no need to compel further response
or further efforts to discover potentially responsive documents.
B.
Interrogatories
In addition to the document requests discussed above, Collins has also moved
for entry of an order compelling defendant Hicks to respond more fully to a first set
of interrogatories that Collins propounded. (Doc. 108.) Collins specifically seeks to
be provided with more information concerning the order that led to him being moved
to a different cell on May 4, 2011, and to be placed in ambulatory restraints. (Doc.
108, at 5.) Although Collins restates his interrogatories and Hicks’s answers and
objections to them, Collins does not explain why the answers or objections were
improper or inadequate.
Thus, in Interrogatory No. 1, Collins asked defendant Hicks to “Name the
higher ranking person who ordered you to move the plaintiff from Z-Block to DBlock on May 4, 2011.” (Doc. 111, Ex. 1, Def. Hicks’s Ans. and Obj. to Pl’s. First
Set of Interrogatories, at 3.) Defendant Hicks responded that he lacked sufficient
knowledge or information to answer, because he could not remember the name of the
officer who have him the order. Collins has not challenged this response in any
meaningful way, and we find no basis to compel defendant Hicks to do anything more
17
than he has done by answering the question to state that he lacks knowledge of who
gave the order.
Interrogatory No. 2 asked, “At what time on May 4, 2011, did the higherranking official order you to make the move?” (Id., at 3.) Hicks objected to the
interrogatory on the basis of relevance, but stated that it would have been before 1:40
p.m., which was the time indicated on Incident Report No. 2158647. Hicks lacked
personal recall of the exact time, and thus provided an answer that appears to have
been informed by a written incident report that was prepared shortly after the incident
in question. We find no reason to require further response than the one Hicks has
given.
In Interrogatory No. 3, Collins asks in an inquiring manner, “Why was the cell
move so important?” (Id., at 4.) It is difficult to perceive how Hicks should have
answered this question in any event, but he nevertheless informed Collins that he
lacked sufficient personal knowledge since he could not remember if he was given
a reason for the move, and he represented that it was unlikely he would have been
given a reason. There is no basis to compel further response.
Interrogatory No. 4 asks, “If the cell move had not been made, would the
plaintiff remaining in the cell he was in and the unit he was in on May 4, 2011 been
a threat to security, prison staff or any other inmates?” (Id.) Hicks responded that he
18
lacked knowledge to answer, which is entirely consistent with Hicks’s representation
that he did not even know the reason for the cell move in the first place. There is
nothing further that is required with respect to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 5 asks, “If there was an existing threat before the plaintiff
was approached and told he was going to be moved to D-Block, then explain exactly
what that threat consisted of on the date of May 4, 2011.” (Id.) Again, Hicks has
represented that he lacks personal knowledge to answer this question, and since he
did not know the reason for the cell move, it is hardly surprising that Hicks could not
provide a more detailed answer to this specific question.
Finally, in Interrogatory No. 6, Collins asked, “Did you take it upon yourself
to move the plaintiff on May 4, 2011 without any higher-ranking authorization?”
(Id., at 5.) Defendant Hicks answered, “No.” (Id.) Again, we find no reason to
compel a further answer here, since Hicks’s answer is complete and responsive.
As noted, Collins has taken no steps to clarify or explain what about defendant
Hicks’s answers he found problematic or lacking. Collins may be dissatisfied with
Hicks’s answers, but he has made no showing to suggest that the answers were
untruthful or that they omitted information of which Hicks knew. There is simply no
substance to Collins’s motion, and there is nothing to be gained by compelling Hicks
to provide any further answers than those he has given to date, which essentially
19
represented that he lacked sufficient personal knowledge to answer the questions that
Collins had posed. Even if there were any basis for the Court to grant Collins’s
motion – and we find none – an order granting the motion would not cause Hicks’s
answers to change, as he has stated in his brief. According, the motion to compel
defendant Hicks to provide more fulsome answers to interrogatories will be denied.
IV.
ORDER
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motions to compel
further responses to document requests (Doc. 91.) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. The defendants shall undertake further review of BOP records to determine
whether any potentially responsive documents exist that indicate actual findings of
misconduct on the part of defendant Fleming, R. Johnson, or T. Johnson relating to
the treatment of inmates. If any such documents exist, the defendants shall provide
them to the Court in camera within 30 days of the date of this order so that a
determination can be made as to whether they should be produced in whole or in part
to Collins. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.
In addition, Collins’s motion to compel defendant Hicks to provide further
answers to interrogatories (Doc. 108.) is DENIED in its entirety.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 7, 2015
20
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?