Hazel v. Sanders et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying, without prejudice, 49 Motion to Compel. DETAILS SET FORTH IN ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 5/24/11.(rpol, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

Edwin Reeves Hazel, III,
Plaintiff
vs.

Sargent Rosemary Sanders and
Captain Cliff McElvogue,
Defendants

) Civil Action No. 9:10-cv-0321-MBS
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This action was originally filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, asserting violations of his
constitutional rights while he was a pre-trial detainee at the Berkeley county Detention Center.1
Following the granting, in part, and denial, in part, of a motion for summary judgment filed by the
Defendants, Plaintiff obtained counsel, who was granted leave to conduct such discovery as may be
appropriate prior to further consideration of the case. See Court Docket No. 44.
On April 13, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to compel seeking an order from this
Court compelling the Defendants to comply with Plaintiff’s request for production of documents
Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion outright, or in the alternative seek to have
Plaintiff’s discovery requests more narrowly tailored to fit the claims being asserted in this lawsuit.

1

Plaintiff is now an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. See Court Docket
No. 22.

Pursuant to previous rulings of the Court, the only claims remaining in this case are
Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages due to retribution/retaliation by the Defendant Sanders,
having to eat an unhealthy diet, being allowed inadequate time for recreation, an inadequate
opportunity to shower, and improper classification. See Order of the Court filed November 18,
2010, at pp. 2-3. In his discovery requests, Plaintiff seeks production of the following:
Request For Production No. 1
Any and all grievances, complaints, or other documents received by the
Defendants or their agents at the Hill-Finklea Detention Center concerning
inmates that were housed in A-Pod from March 3, 2009 to March 23, 2010, and
any memoranda, investigative files, or other documents created in response to
such document.
Request For Production No. 2
Any logs, lists or other documentation reflecting grievances filed by Hill-Finklea
Detention Center inmates housed in A-Pod from March 3, 2009 until the date on
which you respond to these requests.
Request For Production No. 3
Any and all documents created by any Hill-Finklea Detention Center staff
member in response to grievances filed by A-Pod inmates from March 3, 2009
to March 23, 2010.
Request For Production No. 5
Any logs, lists or other documentation as to the names of who was housed in APod on protective custody from March 3, 2009 to March 23, 2010.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s requests are overly broad and are not responsive to any of
the claims and issues remaining in this case. The Court is constrained to agree with the Defendants,
and Plaintiff has offered no cogent rationale for why or how the documents requested relate to

2

Plaintiff’s remaining claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied, at this time, without
prejudice.
Plaintiff may submit more narrowly tailored production requests to the Defendants within
seven (7) days of the date of this Order. In the event of any dispute arising from such requests, the
parties are urged to attempt to resolve any disputed matters between counsel before seeking Court
review or intervention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________
Bristow Marchant
United States Magistrate Judge
May 24, 2011
Charleston, South Carolina

3