Adams v. Lewis et al

Filing 62

ORDER.Defendants motion for a Protective Order 49 is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants motion for an extension of time within which to respond to Plaintiffs amended complaint and file a reply to Plaintiffs response in oppos ition of Defendants motion for a protective order 57 is well taken and GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Plaintiffs motion for an order directing Defendants to forward him a copy of the document filed as Docket No. 37 59 is well taken and GRANTED. Th e parties are ORDERED to confer and attempt to resolve their discovery disputes prior filing any renewed motion for Protective Order in this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee on 3/6/23. (c/m Christopher Adams #328180 TROUSDALE TURNER CORRECTIONAL CENTER WD218 140 MACON WAY HARTSVILLE, TN 37074) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
CHRISTOPHER ADAMS,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
RANDALL LEWIS,
LISA HELTON, and
SHAWN PHILLIPS,
Defendants.

No.:

1:22-CV-125-SKL

ORDER
Defendants have filed an amended motion for a protective order [Doc. 49] in this pro se
prisoner’s civil rights lawsuit alleging a retaliatory prison transfer. Plaintiff has filed responses
opposing the motion [Docs. 53, 56, 59], and Defendants have filed a reply thereto [Doc. 61]. Also
pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion for an extension of time within which to file their
reply and respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 57] and Plaintiff’s motion for an Order
requiring Defendants to provide him with a copy of the “Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend,” which is docketed as Doc. 37 [Doc. 59]. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendants’ motion for a Protective Order [Doc. 49] will be DENIED without prejudice;
Defendants’ motion for an extension of time [Doc. 57] will be GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and
Plaintiff’s motion requiring Defendants to forward him a copy of their response opposing his
motion to amend [Doc. 59] will be GRANTED.
I.

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action alleging that he was subjected to a retaliatory transfer from

Bledsoe County Correctional Complex (“BCCX”) to Trousdale Turner Correctional Facility in

Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 62 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 677

October 2021 because he exercised his First Amendment right to file lawsuits and make grievances
[Doc. 10]. This Court initially permitted Plaintiff’s claim to proceed against Defendant Randall
Lewis in his individual capacity [Doc. 11], and it later amended its ruling to allow Plaintiff to
proceed against Tennessee Department of Correction Commissioner Lisa Helton and BCCX
Warden Shawn Phillips in their official capacities solely for the purpose of carrying out any
prospective injunctive relief that might ultimately be ordered [Doc. 20]. Defendants subsequently
moved to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc.
35].
While Defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending, Defendants filed an amended motion
for a Protective Order regarding 338 discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff [Doc. 49]. The
Court stayed this case pending resolution of Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 48]. On January
26, 2023, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss and lifted the stay of proceedings [Doc.
55]. Subsequently, Plaintiff supplemented his responses opposing the entry of a Protective Order
[Docs. 56. 59], and Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s response [Doc. 61].
II.

ANALYSIS
Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may issue a Protective Order limiting or

restricting discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A motion requesting a Protective Order must
“include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with
other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1).
Defendants have attached a certification to their motion for a Protective Order stating that
counsel attempted to arrange a telephone conversation with Plaintiff to resolve the discovery

2
Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 62 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 678

dispute but could not “because Plaintiff is a pro se inmate and due to time restraints” [Doc. 49 p.
12]. Defendants’ certification provides no information as to whom counsel contacted to arrange a
telephone conversation or when this attempt occurred, and the Court is reluctant to wade into a
discovery dispute between parties that have not met, either telephonically or through
videoconference, and attempted to cooperate and resolve their disputes. Accordingly, the Court
will deny Defendants’ motion for a Protective Order [Doc. 49] without prejudice.
The Court would be remiss not to note that the number and depth of Plaintiff’s discovery
requests appear unreasonable. On the other hand, it appears that Defendants could provide at least
some of the information sought by Plaintiff through affidavit testimony. Therefore, the parties
will be ordered to confer and attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests prior to refiling a Rule 26(c) motion in this Court.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1.

Defendants’ motion for a Protective Order [Doc. 49] is DENIED without prejudice;

2.

Defendants’ motion for an extension of time within which to respond to Plaintiff’s
amended complaint and file a reply to Plaintiff’s response in opposition of
Defendants’ motion for a protective order [Doc. 57] is well taken and GRANTED
nunc pro tunc;

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing Defendants to forward him a copy of the
document filed as Docket No. 37 [Doc. 59] is well taken and GRANTED; and

4.

The parties are ORDERED to confer and attempt to resolve their discovery
disputes prior filing any renewed motion for Protective Order in this Court.

SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/Susan K. Lee
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3

Case 1:22-cv-00125-SKL Document 62 Filed 03/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 679