Robinson v. Gilliard

Filing 28

ORDER denying ECF Nos. 21 and 22 Motions to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 11/28/2016. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Corey Jawan Robinson,

Plaintiff,
v.
Officer/Sergeant Mr Gilliard,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 5:16-cv-01635-JMC-KDW

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s two discovery motions. ECF Nos. 21,
22. The court will rule on each motion in turn.
1. Motion to Compel, ECF No. 21
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatories, asserting that
Defendant did not answer three interrogatories served on him. ECF No. 21. On November 3,
2016, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. ECF No. 23. There, Defendant
represents he has answered Interrogatory Number 1, and is “gathering information responsive to
[Plaintiff’s] Interrogatory, and will provide Plaintiff a copy of the same to the extent any records
are received.” See id. Defendant indicates that he objected to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories 2 and 3 to
the extent they assume a disputed fact. See id. at 1-2. In Plaintiff’s Reply, he again seeks answers
to Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3, but Plaintiff does not argue against Defendant’s specific objections.
See ECF No. 26.
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s interrogatories and Defendant’s answers and finds that
Plaintiff’s interrogatories assert several disputed facts. Therefore, the undersigned sustains
Defendant’s objections based on the language Plaintiff used in drafting them. The court also
finds that Defendant’s answer to Interrogatory 1 is forthcoming. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel, ECF No. 21, is denied without prejudice with leave to refile should Defendant fail to
answer Interrogatory 1 in due time.
2. Motion to Compel, ECF No. 22
On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel Production of six categories
of documents. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff represents he is seeking the following documents in his
Requests for Production (“RFP”):
1) Original copies of Plaintiff’s entire disciplinary history while being
incarcerated in SCDC custody.
2) Original or copies of Plaintiff’s entire grievance history while being
incarcerated at SCDC to include Step 1 and Step 2 grievances filed on Defendant
Gilliard.
3) Original or copies of Plaintiff[’s] medical records from the date of November
2014 through the year 2015 while being treated for injury resulted from
Defendant Gilliard.
4) Original or copies of the A-side SMU log book from November 2014 through
January 2015.
5) Original or copies of cell check sheets for Plaintiff from November 2014
through January 2015.
6) Original or copies of the Incident Report filed by the Defendant Gilliard for the
incident on November 2014 on the 14th day.
Id. On November 3, 2016, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. ECF No. 24. There,
Defendant represents he lodged several objections to Plaintiff’s requests, including objecting on
the basis that the RFPs were overly broad. See id. Alternatively, Defendant argued that Plaintiff
was seeking records from SCDC, a non-party to the action, and “Plaintiff has equal capability
and can pursue records maintained by SCDC in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” See id. at 2.
The undersigned has reviewed the RFPs and responses to it. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
with respect to RFPs 1, 2, 3, and 6 is denied without prejudice. It appears that Defendant has
obtained responses to Plaintiff’s requests to the extent the RFPs are related to the incident that is
2

the subject of Plaintiff’s action, and Defendant’s responses are forthcoming. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with respect to these RFPs is denied without prejudice with leave
to refile should Defendant fail to produce these responses in due time.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel with respect to RFPs 4 and 5 is denied. Based on
Defendant’s responses to these requests, it appears that Plaintiff should seek this discovery
directly from SCDC, a non-party to this lawsuit. Therefore, Plaintiff is instructed to seek these
documents via subpoena and pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
current discovery deadline of October 24, 2016, will be extended so that Plaintiff may pursue
obtaining these documents via subpoena. However, discovery is otherwise closed. See ECF No.
18. The parties are instructed not to serve additional discovery requests. Additionally, other than
filing motions concerning outstanding discovery, the parties are instructed not to file additional
discovery motions in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 28, 2016
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

3