FANTONE v. LATINI et al
Filing
75
ORDER denying 70 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 7/31/2015. (bsc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILLIP LEE FANTONE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
JOE BURGER,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-cv-1691
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Court Compelling Discovery.
(ECF No. 70), to which Defendant has filed a Response (ECF No. 72). For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
A. Legal Standard
The general framework for determining the scope of allowable discovery for cases in
federal courts is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which provides as follows.
(b) Discovery Scope and Limits.
(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 the
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) Limitations on Frequency and Extent.
(A) When Permitted. By order, the court may alter the limits in these rules
on the number of depositions and interrogatories or on the length of
1
depositions under Rule 30. By order or local rule, the court may also limit
the number of requests under Rule 36.
(B) Specific Limitations on Electronically Stored Information. A party
need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from
sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of
undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the
information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.
If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from
such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the
limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the
discovery.
(C) When Required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit the
frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by
local rule if it determines that:
(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 the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).
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, 329 U.S. 495, 501. The polestar of discovery is relevance, which, for
discovery purposes, is interpreted broadly.
All relevant material is discoverable unless an
applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000).
When there is no doubt about relevance, a court should tend toward permitting discovery. Heat
2
and Control, Inc. v. Hester Industries, Inc., 785 F.2d 1017, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing
Deitchman v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 740 F.2d 556, at 556 (7th Cir. 1984)).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 requires that a party served with a document request either produce the
requested documents or state a specific objection for each item or category objected to. The
burden is upon the party objecting to discovery to state the grounds for the objection with
specificity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2); Momah v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 164 F.R.D. 412,
417 (E.D. Pa. 1996). “Mere recitation of the familiar litany that an interrogatory or a document
production request is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant will not suffice.” Id.
(quoting Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982)). The objecting party must
demonstrate in specific terms why a particular 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). The party attempting to withhold the release of relevant material on
the grounds of privilege must also “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or
other tangible things not produced or disclosed ... in a manner that ... will enable other parties to
assess the claim.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).
Once an objection has been properly
articulated, the burden rests with the party seeking discovery to show that a discovery request
lies within the bounds of Rule 26. Momah, 164 F.R.D. at 417. Then, the party opposing
discovery must convince the court why discovery should not be had. Id. (citing Amcast Indus.
Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 138 F.R.D. 115, 118–19 (N.D. Ind. 1991)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a party who has received evasive or
incomplete discovery responses to seek a court order compelling additional disclosure or
discovery. “The party seeking the order to compel must demonstrate the relevance of the
information sought. The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must demonstrate in
3
specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope of discovery or is
otherwise privileged or improper.” Option One Mortgage Corp. v. Fitzgerald, Civil No. 3:071877, 2009 WL 648986 at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar.11, 2009). With these principles in mind, the Court
will review Plaintiff’s motion.
B. Discussion
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to compel specific discovery requests relating to his
suit against the sole remaining defendant Joe Burger, a prison correctional officer, who Plaintiff
alleges wrongfully retaliated against him because he would not confess to a disciplinary charge
and because he filed a grievance against Burger. The factual background of this case was fully
discussed in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 48), as well as the Opinion
of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dated December 9, 2014. The Third Circuit upheld
this Court’s grant of a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of denial of due process in
connection with misconduct proceeds and a conspiracy claim. The retaliation claim against
Defendant Burger is the sole remaining claim and Burger is the sole remaining defendant.
On April 24, 2015, the Court entered an Order requiring Defendant to provide Plaintiff
with numerous items of discovery. Plaintiff was ordered to advise the Court of any additional
relevant discovery he requests no later than June 26, 2015. Plaintiff was also advised that he
could not submit requests for discovery directly to Defendant without leave of Court. (ECF No.
61). On May 27, 2015, Defendant advised the Court that he had complied with the Court’s
Order as well as a subpoena it received from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 64). On July 7, 2015, Plaintiff
filed the pending Motion to Compel, asserting that Defendant’s production was incomplete and
requesting additional documents. (ECF No. 70). Defendant filed a response on July 24, 2015.
(ECF No. 72).
4
Specifically, Plaintiff makes the following requests, which are addressed seriatim below.
1.
The Complete Grievance # 409468 Paperwork.
In his first request, Plaintiff seeks the “complete paperwork” pertaining to Grievance #
409468. Defendant responds that the “complete paperwork” was provided to Plaintiff on May
27, 2015. Thus, this request is DENIED as moot.
2.
The Final Disposition of Misconduct B310909.
Plaintiff requests the final Disposition of Misconduct B310909 and Defendant responds
that Plaintiff has this document which is attached to the complaint at Doc. No. 3-2. Thus, this
request is DENIED as moot.
3.
The Complete File for Misconduct B148406.
1
Plaintiff requests documents related to Misconduct B148406, which he represents was
dismissed due to lack of evidence.
He asserts that these documents are “material in the
development of the pattern of conspiracies and retaliations against Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 70 at 1).
Defendant responds that this Misconduct was reported by CO Durkacs, not a defendant in this
case, and that it is not related to the misconduct that resulted in administrative custody that
Plaintiff asserts was the result of retaliation by Defendant. Further, the conspiracy claim is no
longer part of this litigation and the only remaining retaliation claim is against Defendant.
As stated above, once an objection has been properly articulated, the burden rests with
the party seeking discovery to show that a discovery request lies within the bounds of Rule 26.
Based upon the motion filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a
showing of the relevancy of this request. Thus, this request is DENIED.
1
Plaintiff identifies this Misconduct by numbers B148806 and B148406 in his motion. Defendant refers to this
Misconduct as number B148406. (ECF No. 70).For purposes of this order, the Court will assume that the reference
to number B148806 is a typographical error.
5
4. RHU/A100 Employee Login Sheets.
Plaintiff requests these login sheets for four days in 2012. He does not give a reason for
this request other than stating: “If defendant wishes not to reveal his location of being where the
complaint puts him on the above dates and times due to some kind of institutional rule. The
plaintiff is no longer in prison or even living in Pennsylvania and besides that this material
needed can be filed under seal.” (ECF No. 70 at 2). Defendant objects to the relevance of these
login sheets and states that the release of the documents could cause security concerns. The
court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a showing of the relevancy of these documents.
Further, the Court credits prison security concerns raised by Defendant. Thus, this request is
DENIED. The Court notes that Plaintiff may request the information concerning Defendant’s
whereabouts at a particular relevant time by way of an interrogatory or by a request for
admission; therefore he is not prejudiced by this denial.
5. Any and All Complaints and Grievances Against Defendant by Prisoners.
Defendant argues that these documents are likewise irrelevant.
Further, Defendants
asserts that Grievances are not definitive proof of anything, but rather, simply allegations. The
Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a showing of the relevancy of these documents.
Thus, this request is DENIED.
AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2015:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as explained above.
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
6
cc:
PHILLIP LEE FANTONE
9600 Village View Blvd.
Apt. 202
Bonita springs, FL 34135
Robert A. Willig
Office of Attorney General
Email: rwillig@attorneygeneral.gov
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?