Timpson et al v. Haley et al

Filing 465

OPINION and ORDER denying 452 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 2/6/23.(alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Johnny Timpson, by and through his
Conservator, Sandra Timpson, and
Sandra Timpson, in her individual
capacity,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Anderson County Disabilities and
)
Special Needs Board, Thrive Upstate, )
and the South Carolina Department
)
of Disabilities and Special Needs,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No. 6:16-cv-01174-DCC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Three
Depositions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).

ECF No. 452.

Defendants filed Responses in Opposition, and Plaintiffs filed Replies. ECF Nos. 453,
454, 455, 457, 458, 459. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Following a five-day jury trial, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter the Judgment and a
Motion for a New Trial on June 7, 2019. ECF 386. After this Court denied the Motions,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. ECF Nos. 416, 417. On April 7, 2022, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion affirming in part,
vacating in part, and remanding the decisions of this Court. ECF No. 423. Specifically,
the Fourth Circuit vacated this Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Sandra Timpson’s retaliation
claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act

(“RA”) that occurred between February 23, 2013, and February 23, 2015, remanded the
case to this Court, and directed Plaintiff Sandra Timpson “to specify which Defendants, if
any, she claims retaliated against her during this period and to state, with specificity, how
they did so.” Id. at 15. On May 24, 2022, this Court issued a text order “directing Plaintiff
Sandra Timpson to file an amended complaint pursuant to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s ruling on her appeal within 30 days.” ECF No. 426.
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on June 23, 2022. ECF No. 435.
On November 30, 2022, the Court held a telephone discovery conference with the
parties in an effort to resolve their disputes regarding Plaintiffs’ requested Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions at issue here. ECF No. 448. The Court encouraged the parties to continue
working to resolve the discovery disputes, but if they were unable to do so, then Plaintiffs
were permitted to file a motion to compel by December 15, 2022. Id. On that date,
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel, Defendants filed Responses in Opposition,
and Plaintiffs filed Replies. ECF Nos. 452, 453, 454, 455, 457, 458, 459. The Motion is
now before the Court.
APPLICABLE LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) limits the scope of discovery to “any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case.” A matter is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of
consequence to the action more or less probable than it would be otherwise. Fed. R.
Evid. 401. The district court may broadly construe this and the other rules enabling
discovery, but it “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if it
determines that the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can

2

be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive”; if the requesting party “has had ample opportunity to obtain the information
by discovery in the action”; or if it is otherwise “outside the scope permitted by Rule
26(b)(1).” Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). “The scope and conduct of discovery are within the
sound discretion of the district court.” Columbus-Am. Discovery Grp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co.,
56 F.3d 556, 568 n.16 (4th Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION
The present discovery dispute arises out of a set of deposition notices sent from
Plaintiffs to Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to compel Rule 30(b)(6) depositions
of witnesses representing each of the three Defendants. ECF No. 452. The notices
requested the following depositions:
1. Rule 30(b)(6) witness of the South Carolina Department of
Disabilities and Special Needs re critical incident reports
involving residents of Tiny Greer group home and policies,
directives and reports of sexual activities of clients who
have intellectual disabilities at Tiny Greer Group home,
records related to residents of Tiny Greer group home who
are registered sex offenders, reports of misappropriation
of SNAP benefits in DDSN facilities, all critical incident
reports and investigations involving Johnny Timpson, any
and all knowledge of matters related to Johnny Timpson
and Sandra Timpson from 2013 through 2016 and other
matters related to alleged retaliation against Sandra
Timpson.
2. Rule 30(b)(6) witness of Anderson Disabilities and Special
Needs Board re critical incident reports involving residents
of Tiny Greer group home and policies, directives and
reports of sexual activities of clients who have intellectual
disabilities at Tiny Greer Group home, records related to
residents of Tiny Greer group home who are registered
sex offenders, reports of misappropriation of SNAP
benefits in DDSN facilities, all critical incident reports and
investigations involving Johnny Timpson, any and all
knowledge of matters related to Johnny Timpson and
3

Sandra Timpson from 2013 through 2016 and other
matters related to alleged retaliation against Sandra
Timpson.
3. Rule 30(b)(6) witness of Greenville Thrive and/or
Greenville Disabilities and Special Needs Board re critical
incident reports involving residents of Tiny Greer group
home and policies, directives and reports of sexual
activities of clients who have intellectual disabilities at Tiny
Greer Group home, records related to residents of Tiny
Greer group home who are registered sex offenders,
reports of misappropriation of SNAP benefits in DDSN
facilities, all critical incident reports and investigations
involving Johnny Timpson, any and all knowledge of
matters related to Johnny Timpson and Sandra Timpson
from 2013 through 2016 and other matters related to
alleged retaliation against Sandra Timpson.
ECF No. 452-1 at 1–2.
Having considered the arguments and submissions of the parties, the Court denies
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. At the outset, the Court notes that this case was remanded
for the limited purpose of extending the statute of limitations for Sandra Timpson’s claims
of retaliation pursuant to the ADA and the RA. While Plaintiffs were limited to a one-year
statute of limitations for such claims at trial, no such limitation was imposed as to Plaintiffs’
discovery of information relevant to the alleged retaliation. In fact, Plaintiffs had a full and
fair opportunity to engage in discovery relative to the protected activity, the alleged
retaliatory acts, the motivation for such retaliation, and the temporal nexus between the
protected activity and the retaliatory acts. Indeed, it is apparent that Plaintiffs have
adduced such evidence, as the arguments in their Motion are much less about the need
for additional information than a highly factual argument on the merits.
Turning to the deposition notices at issue here, Plaintiffs’ requests would be overly
broad on their face even if they were Plaintiffs’ initial discovery effort in this matter. There

4

is no specificity as to the type of information sought nor any relevant time period to
properly limit the scope of the inquiry. In fact, in Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of
their Motion, they seem to argue that deponents could be asked about Johnny Timpson’s
records from the Whitten Center from many years earlier. Therefore, in light of the
procedural posture of this case, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices
seek information well beyond the scope of that allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26. The excessive and overly broad topics are simply not proportional to the needs of the
case given the limited scope of the claims on remand and Plaintiffs’ prior opportunity for
discovery. Moreover, the time allowed for discovery in the parties’ current scheduling
order has now passed. Accordingly, no further discovery requests shall be permitted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [452] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

February 6, 2023
Spartanburg, South Carolina

5