Geissler v. Patterson et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 08/15/2017.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

RUSSELL GEISSLER,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LISA YOUNG, CAPTAIN OF SALUDA
DORM; DENNIS BUSH, WARDEN, BROAD )
RIVER PRISON; BRIAN SMITH, LT. OVER )
)
SALUDA ON NIGHT SHIFT; McCLEAN,
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT BRCI,
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________ )

C/A No. 4:17-0236-MBS-TER

ORDER

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (Doc.
#89). Defendants filed a response to the motion. (Doc. #97).
In this motion, Plaintiff has complained about responses to Interrogatories #3,
4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 presented to Defendant Bush. In this motion, Plaintiff requests that
“. . . defendants be compelled to answer the questions to a more specific and
acceptable standard. The Defendant claim that certain parts of the Interrogatories can
be answered via S.C.D.C. Policy if Plaintiff takes the time to look them up. It was not
the Plaintiff’s request to what the policies are, it was the Plaintiff’s request for yes and
no answers.” (Doc. #89).
1

Defendants filed a response stating that the motion to compel should be denied
because Defendant Bush adequately responded to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Doc.
#97 at 4).1 Additionally, Defendants assert that with regard to Plaintiff’s complaint
that the interrogatories were not answered with “yes” or “no” answers,

no

interrogatory requested such a response. Defendants argue that the responses are
appropriately detailed to answer what they understand his questions to be or to direct
Plaintiff to SCDC Policy and Procedures that provides the relevant information.
With regard to the discovery requests addressed to Defendant Bush, Plaintiff
refers specifically to Interrogatories #3, #4, #5, #8, #11, and #12. Each will be
discussed below.
Interrogatory#3:

Is it against policy and procedure to give more than
one tray per meal time to an inmate?

Response:

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access to

1

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has still not provided a clear and concise
amended complaint and they are left to attempt to interpret numerous and often
inconsistent pleadings/filings in an effort to ascertain the nature and scope of
Plaintiff’s claims. Defendants assert that “attempt is complicated by the fact that
Plaintiff’s entire Warden’s jacket, Central Record, medical records and grievance
history (a combined 816 pages, all of which has been produced to Plaintiff) contains
little , if anything, to shed light on the Plaintiff’s claims.” (Doc. #97 at 5). Further,
Defendants contend that Plaintiff refers to a note or “kite” he allegedly sent one of the
Defendants in his pleadings which are not part of the materials in their possession.
Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is addressed in a separate order by
the court.
2

the non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC
at his Institution’s law library. Plaintiff is requested
to see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC,
including but not limited to Food Service Operations
(ADM-16.05) and Employee-Inmate Relations
(ADM-11.34), for information responsive to this
Interrogatory.
To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an admission, it
is denied.
Interrogatory #4: Is it against policy and procedure to share trade or
sell one tray of an inmate to another inmate?
Response:

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access to
the non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC
at this Institution’s law library. Plaintiff is requested
to see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC,
including but not limited to Food Service Operations
(ADM-16.05) and Employee-Inmate Relations
(ADM-11.34), for information responsive to this
Interrogatory.
To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an admission, it
is denied.

Interrogatory #5: Is it against policy and procedure to “take side” or
help one inmate to collect financial assets from
another as an employee of the South Carolina Dept.
of Corrections?
Response:

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access to
the non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC
at his Institution’s law library. Plaintiff is requested
to see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC,
including but not limited to Employee-Inmate
Relations (ADM-11.34), for information responsive
to this Interrogatory.
3

To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an admission, it
is denied.
Court’s ruling:

In response to Interrogatories #3, #4, and #5, Defendant Bush

identified policies and procedures applicable to the Interrogatory. However, Defendant
Bush should more directly respond to these Interrogatories which, if applicable, can
include references to the particular policy and procedure. Otherwise, Defendant’s
responses are adequate.
Interrogatory #8: Can you tell me the Courts the occupants of cell
#132 and their charges on the dates of December 22,
2016 threw December 31, 2016?
Response:

This Interrogatory is burdensome, overbroad and
seeks information not reasonably calculated to
produce relevant or admissible information. Upon
information and belief, the names or SCDC numbers
of other Inmates are not relevant to this litigation and
to produce the same may be a security concern
without additional information from Plaintiff on why
such information is sought.

Interrogatory#11: Can you describe all items a vegetarian diet consists
of?
Response:

Objection. Defendant objects on the grounds that the
reference to “vegetarian diet” is vague and
ambiguous. Subject to and without waiving the
preceding objection, Defendants responds that upon
information and belief, Plaintiff has access to the
non-restricted policies and procedures of SCDC at
this Institution’s law library. Plaintiff is requested to
see responsive Policies and Procedures of SCDC,
including but not limited to Food Service Operations
4

(ADM-16.05). Furthermore, Plaintiff is encouraged
to send a Request to Staff to the food service
providers at his Institution of incarceration for more
detailed information regarding daily food options or
dietary requirements.
To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks an admission, it
is denied.
Court’s ruling: Defendant should respond to Interrogatory #8 to the extent of his
knowledge, if any. Otherwise, the response to Interrogatory #11 is adequate.
Interrogatory#12: Is it normal procedure to allow an officer and an
inmate to stay around each other after constitutional
violations and lawsuits, areas, or are they placed in
different areas of institution?
Response:

Court’s ruling:

Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it is vague and calls for speculation
about a hypothetical situation. Subject to and without
waiving the preceding objection, Defendant responds
that upon information and belief, Plaintiff has access
to the non-restricted policies and procedures of
SCDC at his Institutional’s law library. Plaintiff is
requested to see responsive Policies and Procedures
of SCDC, including but not limited to EmployeeInmate Relations (ADM-11.34), for information
responsive to this Interrogatory. Notwithstanding the
previous objection, and not waiving the same, all
Inmate and SCDC employee interactions, as they
pertain to the interactions listed by Plaintiff in this
Interrogatory, are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The court finds the response to Interrogatory #12 to be sufficient.

As set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (doc. #89) is GRANTED IN
5

PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
August 15, 2017
Florence, South Carolina

6