Garrett v. Stirling et al

Filing 223

ORDER affirming as supplemented in this order the Magistrate Judge's 195 text order. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 7/23/2019. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Franklin Richardson; Rogers; and McBride,
Defendants.
___________________________________
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chad Binkley; Unknown Officers,
Defendants.
___________________________________
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Randall Fowler, Jr; Lasley; Williams;
DeGeorgis; Wantonta Golden; Jeff Bilyeu;
R. Blackburn; Kenneth Myers; James
Jennings; Nathan Rice,
Defendants.
___________________________________
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Aull; Beckett, Jr.; T. Esterline; and James
Parrish,
Defendants.
___________________________________

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

Case No. 0:18-cv-1309-CMC-PJG

Case No. 0:18-cv-1416-CMC-PJG

Case No. 0:18-cv-1417-CMC-PJG

Case No. 0:18-cv-1418-CMC-PJG

ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Notice of Objections/Appeal of Magistrate
Judge’s 31 May 2019 Docket Text Orders Dismissing Plaintiff’ Motions to Compel Discovery and
Sanction Defendants.” ECF No. 210. Defendants have not filed a reply. For the reasons below,
the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is affirmed.
1. Procedural Posture
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial matters. During the course
of proceedings in this matter, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery, arguing Defendants’
responses to his Requests for Production were “overly evasive and incomplete,” and that
Defendants failed to respond to his First Set of Interrogatories. ECF No. 157. He requests
“Defendants be sanctioned individually for the herein referenced actions.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff also
filed a “supplement” to his motion to compel discovery and for sanctions. ECF No. 184. This
supplement essentially restates the grounds in his original motion, but includes more recently filed
discovery Plaintiff alleges Defendants also have not addressed. Defendants did not respond to
either the motion to compel or the supplement. The Magistrate Judge denied the motions (among
others) by text order on May 31, 2019:
DOCKET TEXT ORDER dismissing as moot in light of the court's Second
Amended Scheduling Order: Plaintiff's motion to compel and for sanctions (ECF
No. 157), Plaintiff's motion to stay (ECF No. 176), Plaintiff's motion to supplement
his motion to compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 184), Defendants' motion for
extension of time (ECF No. 186), Plaintiff's motion to supplement his motion to
compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 192). The court observes without deciding that
Plaintiff's motion to compel appears to be untimely pursuant to Local Civil Rule
37.01(A) (D.S.C.) and the scheduling order in this case and does not fully comply
with Local Civil Rule 7.04 (D.S.C.). In light of the Second Amended Scheduling
Order, Plaintiff may re-serve any discovery requests in accordance with the
2

extended deadline, if he so elects. Entered at the direction of Magistrate Judge Paige
J. Gossett on 5/31/2019. (kkus,) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
ECF No. 195.
Plaintiff’s objections to/appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order were filed on June 13,
2019. ECF No. 210. He requests the court compel Defendants to “turn over all of the discovery
that Plaintiff requested, and sanction the Defendants and their Counsels of Record for their flagrant
abuses of the Discovery Process.” Id. at 1. He argues Defendants’ assertion they are “not in
possession” of many of the documents requested is “without merit and was obviously some type
of stalling tactic.” Id. He also notes Defendants said they would supplement but have failed to
do so. Regarding his interrogatories, he argues Defendants have failed to respond. He also
contends Judge Gossett ordered Defendants to respond to a discovery request in November 2018,
yet they have failed to do so. Id. at 2. He notes he has received no response after serving his
Second Set of Requests for Production, Second Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests
for Admission in March and April of 2019. Id. He requests “judgment of default” against
Defendants in each of his cases, as he has been prejudiced and unable to prepare his cases
adequately. Id.
2. Standard
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a
magistrate judge to hear and decide, the Magistrate Judge must promptly conduct
the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after
being served with a copy. . . . The district judge in the case must consider timely
objections . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
With respect to a Magistrate Judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial matter, a district
court shall “modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate’s order found to be clearly erroneous
3

or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court
may reconsider any [nondispositive] pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the
magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). The Supreme Court has stated that a
finding is “clearly erroneous” when, “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394 (1948).
3. Discussion
The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge Plaintiff’s motions to compel and for sanctions
were properly dismissed in light of the court’s Second Amended Scheduling Order, and that no
sanctions should be imposed for these alleged discovery violations. It does not appear Plaintiff’s
motions to compel were timely filed within 21 days after the response was due, as required by
Local Rule 37.01. Plaintiff is now allowed to re-serve his previous discovery requests, if he so
chooses, and can file a renewed motion to compel within 21 days of the response deadline if
Defendants fail to answer, fail to supplement, or answer incompletely. Defendants are put on
notice they cannot simply ignore discovery requests by Plaintiff, including the requirement to
supplement previous requests. However, the court notes this order does not restrict Defendants’
ability to propound specific objections to the discovery requests served by Plaintiff.1 Based on the
Second Amended Scheduling Order currently in place, discovery requests would need to be served

1

The court agrees many of Plaintiff’s prior requests appear overbroad.
4

no later than August 24, 2019, to allow 30 days for response before the discovery deadline expires.2
See ECF No. 194.
4. Conclusion
The Magistrate Judge’s text order at ECF No. 195 is affirmed as supplemented in this order.
Plaintiff may timely re-serve appropriate discovery requests.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 23, 2019

2

The court recommends re-serving the requests as soon as possible, and tailoring the requests to
directly relate to the issues at hand in Plaintiff’s separate lawsuits. Overbroad requests are subject
to objection.
3

Plaintiff has also filed the same discovery appeal in his other cases. See Case No. 18-1416, ECF
No. 135; Case No. 18-1417, ECF No. 191; and Case No. 18-1418, ECF No. 146. This order applies
in equal force to the objections/appeals to the Magistrate Judge’s text order dated May 31, 2019.
5