Pronin v. Johnson et al

Filing 130

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 122 Motion to Compel; granting 125 Motion to Quash. Defendants are instructed to give a status update to the court no later than July 30, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 7/23/2014.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dmitry Pronin, 382245,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lieutenant Troy Johnson; Operations
Lieutenant Eda Olivera-Negron; Kenneth
Atkinson; Daniel Fallen; Rex Blocker;
Louisa Fuertes-Rasario; Sandra K.
Lathrop; Jake Burkett; Brandon Burkett;
John Bryant; Patina Walton-Grier; Henri
Wall; Edward Hampton; William Johnson;
Officer Flournoy; Officer Middlebrook;
Officer Wilson; and Officer Crawford,

Defendants.

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

C/A No.

5:12-cv-03416-DCN-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 122, filed on July 14,
2014, and Defendants’ Motion to Quash, ECF No. 125, filed on July 16, 2014. Pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d),
D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under Title
42, United States Code, Section 1983, and submit findings and recommendations to the District
Court.
Plaintiff’s Motion asks the court to compel Defendants to respond to the discovery
requests he mailed on June 11, 2014. ECF No. 122. The court finds that Defendants’ responses to
Plaintiff’s discovery was due on July 16, 2014, two days after Plaintiff filed his Motion to
Compel. Therefore, Plaintiff prematurely filed his Motion. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is entitled to
responses to discovery directed at Defendants, not non-party witnesses. Therefore, Plaintiff’s

Motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants to respond to discovery
requests directed at named Defendants in this action.
In their Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Discovery, Defendants request the court quash the
discovery Plaintiff served on Defendants that was directed toward witnesses who are non-parties
to this action. ECF No. 125. Specifically, Defendants move to quash: (1) Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of
Interrogatories to Defendants/Witness Joshua Engle; (2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Set of Interrogatories
to Defendants/Witness William Adkison; (3) Plaintiff’s Ninth Set of Interrogatories to Witness
Jerry Harriott, Jr.; (4) Plaintiff’s Twelfth Set of Interrogatories to Witnesses Brian Finnerty and
Gerald Lewis; and (5) Plaintiff’s Thirteenth Set of Interrogatories to Witness Galina
Rakityanskaya. ECF No. 125-1. Rule 33(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits
parties to serve interrogatories only on “any other party.” See also Jayne H. Lee, Inc. v. Flagstaff
Indus. Corp., 173 F.R.D. 651, 652 (D. Md. 1997) (“Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a) does not permit
interrogatories to be served on non-parties.”). Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Quash
Plaintiff’s Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Interrogatories, directed at non-parties,
is granted.
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment has been
held in abeyance until after the close of discovery. See ECF Nos. 111, 112. Defendants are
instructed to give a status update to the court no later than July 30, 2014, indicating whether they
have served discovery responses on Plaintiff. Upon receipt, the court will impose a deadline on
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 23, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge