CHAPPELL v. GILMORE et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 4/13/17. [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
MARK CHAPPELL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT GILMORE, MARK
DIALESANDRO, JUBULANI SIBANDA,
and MICHAEL ANDERSON,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-1317
Judge David Stewart Cercone
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF No. 37

ORDER
Plaintiff Mark Chappell (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”), and is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”). Plaintiff has brought this civil rights actions against
Defendants Robert Gilmore (“Gilmore”), Mark DiAlesandro (“DiAlesandro”), Jubulani Sibanda
(“Sibanda”), and Michael Anderson (“Anderson”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging that
Defendants violated his rights provided by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution by excluding him from Nation of Islam (“NOI”) religious services in
retaliation for filing grievances. ECF No. 6.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No. 37, in
which he asks the Court to issue an Order directing Defendants to disclose certain information
and/or documents that Plaintiff requested during the course of discovery. For the reasons that
follow, the Motion will be denied.
The scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure embraces all
“relevant information,” a concept which is defined in the following terms: “[r]elevant
information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 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). Further, it is well
established that “[f]acts are discoverable, the legal conclusions regarding those facts are not.”
Pilchesky v. Deputy U.S. Marshal Barone, No. 3:14-CV-381, 2016 WL 7118147, at *6 (M.D.
Pa. Dec. 7, 2016), quoting Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 864 (3d
Cir. 1994).
In this case, Plaintiff seeks the following documents and/or information:
1.

the roster of inmates who were allowed to attend NOI religious services
from October 2014 to June 2015 and their religious preferences;

2.

the home address of Defendant Michael Anderson;

3.

Section 2 of the DOC Religious Activities Policy pertaining to
Responsibilities, Staffing and Areas of Functioning.

ECF No. 37.
Defendants have objected to these requests as being either irrelevant to the issues before
the Court, creating privacy concerns and security risks or both. The Court agrees. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.1

BY THE COURT:

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

Dated: April 13, 2017

1

The Court, however, notes that, with respect to Defendant Anderson, the Court is taking steps to effectuate service
on Plaintiff’s behalf.

2

cc:

Mark Chappell
HY-2452
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
All counsel of record via CM/ECF

3