STORY v. WETZEL et al

Filing 141

ORDER denying 135 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 10/17/17. [A copy of this Order was mailed to Plaintiff on this date at his address of record]. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STANTON STORY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, DORINA VARNER,
KERRI MOORE, ROBIN M. LEWIS, L.S.
KERNS, BARR, ROBERT GILMORE,
TRACEY SHAWLEY, IRMA VIHLIDAL,
DR. BYUNGHAK JIN, CAPTAIN
ARMSTRONG, CAPTAIN MITCHELL, LT.
KELLY, LT. SILBAUGH, LT. HOWELLS,
LT. A.J. MORRIS, LT. GREGO, C.O.
JOHNSON, C.O. BARNHART, C.O.
SCHIRRA, SARGENT PLUMLEY,
SARGENT TROUT, and NURSE JANE
DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-1241
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF No. 135

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in which he asks that
sanctions be imposed against Defendants for failing to comply with this Court’s Case
Management Order issued on June 8, 2017, in which the Court directed that discovery was due
by September 7, 2017, and for failing to provide Plaintiff with “total discovery” in this matter.
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.
With respect to the DOC Defendants, the record shows that they responded to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests on August 4, 2017. ECF No. 130-1. Although Plaintiff was dissatisfied with
the responses he received and subsequently filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents,
ECF No. 127, the Court found that Defendants’ responses were entirely appropriate and denied
the Motion. ECF No. 131. Plaintiff therefore received all of the documents to which he is

entitled. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and his objections to
the discovery responses he received revolved around requests Nos. 1-9, none of which pertained
to Defendant Johnson II and Plaintiff did not otherwise complain that Johnson II failed to answer
the interrogatories directed to him. ECF No. 128.
With respect to Defendant Dr. Jin, the record shows not only that Dr. Jin did not receive
Plaintiff’s requests for the production of documents but that the requests at issue pertained to
information in the possession of the DOC and not Dr. Jin. ECF Nos. 140 ¶ 5; 140-2 at 3-4.
Further, counsel for Dr. Jin has represented that he did not receive Plaintiff’s June 2017
interrogatories until he obtained them from counsel for the DOC on October 12, 2017. Dr. Jin
has since responded to the interrogatories. Indeed, the record shows that he did so on the same
date he received them. ECF No. 140-3. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that
sanctions are not warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b).
Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions, ECF No. 135, and Defendant Dr. Jin’s Response thereto, ECF No. 140, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc:

Stanton Story
AP-3330
SCI-Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
2

All counsel of record via CM/ECF

3