SCOTT v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Filing 54

ORDER denying 49 Motion to Compel and granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery insofar as discovery deadline is extended to April 6, 2018. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 2/20/18. A copy of this order will be mailed this day, 2/20/18, to Plaintiff at his address of record. (ard)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONALD SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:17-100
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
Re: ECF Nos. 49 and 50

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Donald Scott (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at
Somerset, has presented a pro se civil rights Complaint. ECF No. 1. Currently before this Court
is a Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff seeking an order directing Defendant to provide responses
to Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth discovery requests.

ECF No. 49.

Also before the Court is

Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. ECF No. 52.
As this Court has recently explained:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as "any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case." …
Rule 37 provides the mechanism to compel discovery from a person or party who
refuses to provide discovery. The party moving to compel discovery under Rule 37
bears the initial burden of proving the relevance of the material requested. See
Morrison v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations
omitted). If the movant meets this initial burden, then the burden shifts to the person
resisting discovery to establish that discovery of the material requested is
inappropriate. Momah v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 164 F.R.D. 412, 417 (E.D. Pa.
1996) (citation omitted). The person resisting discovery must explain with
specificity why discovery is inappropriate; the boilerplate litany that the discovery
sought is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, vague, or irrelevant is insufficient.
See Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-92 (3d Cir. 1982).

PEG Bandwidth PA, LLC v. Salsgiver, Inc., Civ. A. No. 16-178, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108516,
at *3-4 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2017).
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff objects to many of Defendant’s responses but he only
asserts the relevance of the material requested as to two subjects. Thus, he can only carry his
burden on the responses related to these two subjects.
First, in his Fifth Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff sought to discover the
number of “legal assistance requests” denied in the last four years. ECF No. 49-1 at 2. Defendant
objected, stating that the request was overbroad, unduly burdensome because the records were not
kept in a way that would make the information easy to obtain, irrelevant, and not proportional to
the case. Id. at 3. In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff argues that the information was necessary
“for p[e]rjury and false statements.” ECF No. 49 at 4. He presents further argument concerning
fails to demonstrate how the information sought is relevant to his case in any way. Accordingly,
he is not entitled to relief as to this request.
Also in his Fifth Request for Production of Documents, Plaintiff sought statistics for ADA
accommodation requests made to CHCA Brian Hyde in the last four years. ECF No. 49-1 at 6-8.
Defendant objected to these requests on the bases that the information was overbroad, unduly
burdensome and not relevant or proportional to the case. Id. However, Defendant also stated that
Brian Hyde had no ADA requests as described in the past four years. Id. In his Motion to Compel,
Plaintiff argues that the information sought will show that no inmates are accommodated in the
library. ECF No. 49 ¶ 6. Because Defendant has no information concerning ADA requests to
Brian Hyde in the past four years, that information cannot be compelled.
Having failed to carry his burden, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel will be denied.

2

In addition to the Motion to Compel, also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, ECF No. 50, and Defendant’s Brief in Opposition.
ECF No. 53. Plaintiff seeks an additional 60 days for discovery, on the principal basis that he
scheduled depositions to be taken at SCI-Somerset on February 22, 2018, but, due to his nowscheduled temporary transfer to Allegheny County Jail for a trial, he will not be at SCI-Somerset
on February 22, 2018. ECF No. 50 at 2-3. In opposition to this Motion, Defendant asserts that the
discovery deadline in this case has twice been extended past its original November 29, 2017, date
to its present March 5, 2018, date. ECF No. 53 at 1. Defendant argues that Plaintiff could have
noticed depositions much earlier in the discovery period, but did not. Id.
The Court takes judicial notice that the trial at which Plaintiff was supposed to testify has
been continued to March 26, 2018. 1 However, it is not clear from the docket of that case the date
on which the trial was continued. Thus, it is possible that Plaintiff was still transferred in
anticipation of the scheduled trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time will be
granted to the extent that the discovery will be due by April 6, 2018. No further extensions will
be given.

1 https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CPReport.ashx?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0003734-2017 (last visited
2/16/18).

3

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery, ECF No. 50, is GRANTED insofar as the discovery deadline is extended to April 6,
2018. A fourth, and final, Case Management Order will issue.

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

Donald Scott
JY-1727
SCI Somerset
1600 Walters Mill Road
Somerset, PA 15510
All counsel of record via CM/ECF

4