Geissler v. Patterson et al

Filing 187

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 160 Motion to Compel; granting 161 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 03/12/2018.(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,
WASHINGTON, ASSOC. WARDEN BROAD
RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

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

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

ORDER

Defendants.

________________________________________

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF
#160). Defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion. (ECF #167).
In this motion, Plaintiff has complained about responses to Interrogatory Nos.
#1, 5, 6 and 9 presented to Defendant McLean. Each will be discussed below.
Interrogatory No. 1
1:

Answer:

Can you tell the Plaintiff the reason SCDC “terminated”
your employment?
Objection. This interrogatory calls for information
that is not relevant to the current litigation and
exceeds the scope of discovery set forth in Rule
1

26(b)(1). Furthermore, the information sought is
contained within a confidential and restricted
resources file that contains, among other things,
personal identifying information regarding the
defendant which needs to remain restricted from the
Inmate population of SCDC for security purposes.
Notwithstanding the previous objection, and not
waiving the same, Defendant’s separation from
employment at SCDC was in no way related to the
events or allegations at issue in this lawsuit.
To the extent this Interrogatory seeks an admission
it is denied.
In the response to this Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the response was
entirely appropriate and any effort to seek additional personal and confidential
information concerning this former SCDC correctional officer and his personnel file
is objectionable. Id.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory No. 1 is granted to the extent
that, within fifteen days from the date of this order, Defendants are to provide the
reason for McLean’s separation from employment to the Plaintiff or if Defendants
want to provide it for in camera review, Defendants are to also provide a more
specific statement to the court as to why they think the reason for the termination
should be considered protected information.

2

Interrogatory No. 5
5.

Answer:

Where [sic] you known, by multiple inmates, to
bring things in off the “streets” to give to inmates,
such as candy and ink pens?
Objection. This interrogatory seeks a validation and or
consent to facts that are not in evidence before the Court.
Furthermore, this Interrogatory seeks information that is
not relevant to the current litigation and exceeds the scope
of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
Notwithstanding the previous objections, and not waiving
the same, the answer to this interrogatory is no.
To the extent this Interrogatory seeks an admission it is
denied.

The Motion to Compel Interrogatory No. 5 is denied. Defendants responded to the
interrogatory stating “No.”
Interrogatory No. 6
6.

How many write ups did you receive while working
for SCDC?

Answer:

Objection. This interrogatory calls for information
that is not relevant to the current litigation and
exceeds the scope of discovery set forth in Rule
26(b)(1). Furthermore, the information sought is
contained within a confidential and restricted human
resources file that contains, among other thins,
personal identifying information regarding the
Defendant which needs to remain restricted from the
Inmate population of SCDC for security purposes.
Notwithstanding the previous objection, and not
3

waiving the same, Defendant received no sanction or
admonishment from his superiors at SCDC in any
way related to the facts and allegations at issue in
this lawsuit.
Defendants assert this exceeds the scope of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
It is clear this interrogatory is overly broad as it contains no date restriction, subject
matter restriction, and fails to define the parameters of “write up.” Additionally,
Defendants responded to the interrogatory stating that Defendant McLean “received
no sanction or admonishment from his superiors at SCDC in any way related to the
facts and allegations at issue in this lawsuit.” (ECF #167 at 4). Therefore, Plaintiffs
Motion to Compel as to this interrogatory is denied.

Interrogatory 9
9.

Answer:

Have you ever entered a personal relationship with
an inmate; such as: financial or some other type of
“favor” insentive [sic] that benefits you or them or
both of you?
Objection. This Interrogatory seeks a validation and or
consent to facts that are not in evidence before the Court.
Furthermore, this Interrogatory seeks information that is
not relevant to the current litigation and exceeds the scope
of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
Notwithstanding the previous objections, and not waiving
the same, no.
To the extent this Interrogatory seeks an admission it is
4

denied.
The Motion to Compel Interrogatory No. 9 is denied. Defendants responded to
the interrogatory stating “no.”
Also before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for “Request for Clarification on
subpenoing [sic] of Telephone and other documents/records.” (Doc. #161 at 5).
Specifically, Plaintiff is requesting to “get the Record of Gregory Washington’s phone
activity for a certain day” Id. Essentially, Plaintiff seeks a subpoena to obtain the
records of Defendant Washington’s phone activity for December 23, 2016, between
the hours of 8:45 am and 1:45 pm to prove he is not being honest and that he did
attempt to contact Officer Smith while standing in Plaintiff’s room.
Defendant Washington filed a response opposing the motion stating that he is
a named party to the underlying action so that an issuance of a subpoena to him is not
proper. Defendants argue that if Plaintiff seeks to issue a subpoena to some as-of-yetunspecified third-party record keeper, Plaintiff’s request should be denied for failure
to follow Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff’s attention is directed to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Clerk’s office is directed to send one unsigned blank subpoena form
to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall appropriately fill it out and return it to the court for
review, within ten (10) days of the date of this order. Once the subpoena form has
5

been appropriately completed and returned, it will be signed and sent back to the
Plaintiff for service on the named individual within thirty (30) days from the date the
Clerk’s office mails the signed subpoena to Plaintiff.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
March 12, 2018
Florence, South Carolina

1

When seeking subpoenas for documents, Plaintiff should be precise as to the
documents requested and the source to which the subpoena is directed, as well as showing
an ability to pay any costs associated therewith.
6