Wolfe v. Rynolds et al

Filing 263

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in pa rt 110 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 111 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 112 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 149 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 150 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 151 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 186 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 187 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part [ 188] Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 230 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 231 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 232 Motion to Compel; denying 94 Motion to Compel and 95 Motion to Compel. However, Plaintiff may re-file these two motions (#94 and #95) within ten days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 04/19/2019.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
MICHAEL E. WOLFE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
NFN. RYNOLDS,
)
NFN. SHARP,
)
NFN ROGERS,
)
)
NFN McCULLOUGH,
)
NFN. RICHARDSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
____________________________________________)

C/A No. 4:18-1350-TMC-TER

ORDER

This is a civil action filed pro se by Michael E. Wolfe (“Plaintiff”). This matter
is currently before the court on numerous motions to compel filed by the Plaintiff.
In each of the motions, Plaintiff does not deny that the Defendants responded to the
discovery but argues that the answers were not sufficient. The court has reviewed the
motions and the responses.
The Defendants indicate at times that “they do not remember.” In many
circumstances, that may be an inadequate response pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 33 and
34. “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately
and fully in writing under oath.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for
objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity.” See Fed.R.Civ.P.
33(b)(4). “If a party is unable to supply the requested information, the party may not

simply refuse to answer, but must state under oath that he is unable to provide the
information and ‘set forth the efforts he used to obtain the information.’” Hansel v.
Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D.Pa. 1996) quoting Milner v. National
School of Health Tech., 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D.Pa.1977). If only some of the
information is available, that information must be provided, and may be prefaced with
a statement placing the answer in context. As to Request for Production of
Documents, “For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection
and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the
grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(2). A
party must produce all discoverable documents or things responsive to a request that
in the party’s possession, custody, or control.
Therefore, the following Motions to Compel are granted in part, and the
Defendant(s)1 are to provide the Plaintiff with supplemental responses to the discovery
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34 as listed below, within ten days from the date
of this order:
1.

ECF No.107:

Interrogatories Nos. 9, 10,

2.

ECF No.108:

Interrogatories Nos. 3, 9, 19

1

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel are each directed to a different Defendant(s). Defendants
must provide supplemental responses accordingly.
2

3.

ECF No.109:

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 10

4.

ECF No.110:

Interrogatories Nos. 10(part 1), 20,

5.

ECF No. 111:

Interrogatories Nos. 8, 12

6.

ECF No. 112:

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, 9, 12, 21

7.

ECF No. 149:

Request for Production Nos. 14, 16, 17,

8.

ECF No. 151:

Interrogatories No. 21,

9.

ECF No. 188:

Interrogatories Nos. 20(part 2), 21 (part 1),
22 (parts 1 and 2), 23 (parts 1 and 2).

10.

ECF No. 230:

Interrogatory No. 1

11.

ECF No. 231:

Interrogatories Nos. 17, 18

12.

ECF No. 232:

Interrogatories Nos. 18, 19,

Because the Defendants’ responses are adequate as to the following discovery
requests, the Motions to Compel are denied in part as follows:
1.

ECF No. 108:

Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 4

2.

ECF No. 109:

Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7, 8,

3.

ECF No. 110:

Interrogatories Nos. 7, 11

4.

ECF No. 111:

Interrogatories No. 7,

5.

ECF No. 112:

Interrogatories No. 7

6.

ECF No. 149:

Request to Produce Nos. 15, 18,

7.

ECF No. 150:

Interrogatories Nos. 1,4, 5, 6, 8,
3

8.

ECF No. 151:

Interrogatories Nos. 22

9.

ECF No. 186:

Interrogatories Nos. 15(part 2), 17, 18,

10.

ECF No. 187:

Interrogatories Nos. 18(a) & (b), 19 (a) & (b),
21

11.

ECF No. 230:

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4

12.

ECF No. 231:

Interrogatories Nos. 14, 15, 16

13.

ECF No. 232:

Interrogatories Nos. 13,14,15,16,17

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel ECF Nos. 94 and 95 are denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the relevant discovery requests and
responses in accordance with Local Civil Rules 37.01(B) and 7.04, D.S.C. However,
Plaintiff may re-file these two motions within ten days of the date of this order in
compliance with Local Civil Rules 37.01(B) and 7.04, D.S.C.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge

April 19, 2019
Florence, South Carolina

4