Drake v. Jones et al

Filing 106

ORDER granting in part 85 Motion to Compel, directing defendants to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production contained in this order. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 06/01/2010.(bshr, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

H o b a rt P. Drake,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) v. ) ) S g t. Scott Jones; Sgt. Brian Taylor; ) O ff icer Natasha Alston; Officer Harry ) P e re z ; Two Officers as John Doe, et al.; ) o f f ic ia l and individual capacity, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) _________________________________ )

C /A No. 6:09-908-JFA-WMC

ORDER

T h e plaintiff has moved to compel responses to interrogatories propounded to the d e f en d a n ts , and the defendants have responded in writing. The matter thus appears to be ripe f o r this court's review. It appears from the papers submitted that the defendants have already filed affidavits s e ttin g out in detail their version of the events in question. Many of the interrogatories for w h i c h answers are sought relate directly to information contained in the affidavits. A c c o rd in g ly, the court determines that the furnishing of these affidavits suffices to answer m o s t of the interrogatories that have been submitted. A f ter reviewing the positions of the respective parties in this matter, the court grants th e defendant's motion to compel in part and orders as follows: In te rr o g a to r ie s to Defendant Alston D e f en d a n t Alston is required to answer the following interrogatories: 2, 11, 12, and

1

1 3 . The court finds that all of the remaining interrogatories either seek to elicit information th a t is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information. M o re o v e r, much of the information sought in the remaining interrogatories is covered by the d e f e n d a n t's affidavit. In te rr o g a to r ie s as to Defendant Perez D e f en d a n t Perez is required to respond to the following interrogatories: 2, 10, and 12. T h e remaining interrogatories are either not relevant or covered by the defendant's affidavit. In te rr o g a to r ie s as to Defendant Jones D e f en d a n t Jones is required to answer the following interrogatories: 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, a n d 10. The remaining interrogatories either seek irrelevant information or are covered by th e defendant's affidavit. R e q u e st for Production T h e defendants have responded to each and every request for production with an id e n tic a l response which reads: "Other than the records that have been filed in this case and t h o s e that have been provided by plaintiff, these defendants are not in possession of any m a te ria ls responsive to this request." T h e court is prepared to accept this response, with the clear understanding that the d e f en d a n ts will not be able to introduce any documents beyond those described in the d e f en d a n ts ' response to the request for production. Moreover, in an effort to avoid any m isu n d e rsta n d in g or disruption at trial, the defendants are requested to immediately file with th e court all documents referred to in their response to the Requests for Production, Bates 2

n u m b e re d , so that a complete record will be made of the exhibits that might potentially be u s e d by the defendants in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ju n e 1, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

3