Mejia v. Ramirez et al

Filing 61

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Compel; granting 60 Motion for Protective Order.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
February 11, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DONALD MEJIA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
MARIA D RAMIREZ, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-238
§
§
§
§

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This is a Civil Rights action over Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement while
incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in the McConnell Division in
Administrative Segregation (Ad. Seg.). After the Defendants were served, Plaintiff served
a Request for Production seeking six categories of documents. When Defendants failed to
respond, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. (D.E. 50). Defendants filed a response (D.E.
56), an amended response (D.E. 59) and a motion for protective order (D.E. 60) in which
they seek a ruling on their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity before
they are required to respond to discovery. By separate Memorandum and
Recommendation, the undersigned recommended denying Defendants’ motion for
qualified immunity at this time because there are issues of material fact that need further
development. Defendants’ motion for protective order (D.E. 60) is granted until the
District Court issues a ruling on qualified immunity.

1/3

Standard for Discovery
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),1 “Unless otherwise limited by
court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional
to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id.
Plaintiff seeks his entire disciplinary record for the period he was in TDCJ by his
first request. The second category of documents sought includes his entire medical
record. Defendants do not object to production of these categories and assert they already
produced Plaintiff’s medical in their Initial Disclosures. See D.E. 59 (Amended Response
to Motion to Compel).
Category Three seeks copies of the Prison I-201 and I-216 forms for F Pod Ad.
Seg. for the McConnell unit for January 1, 2012 through January 1, 2014. Defendants do
not object to producing this category of documents.
Categories Four and Five seek drawings and photographs of the living space as
well as the indoor and outdoor recreation areas available to F Pod in Ad. Seg. for the
McConnell Unit. Defendants object to producing drawings or photographs of these areas
on the grounds that such information implicates security concerns. Defendants are not
1

2/3

As amended effective December 1, 2015.

required to produce a floor plan or photographs at this time for security reasons. Plaintiff
may describe the spaces and their approximate dimensions. Plaintiff’s requests as to
Categories Four and Five are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his request
for photographs and a floor plan if the case is later set for trial.
Category Six requests details and drawings of the serving carts and other
equipment used to serve meals other than johnny sacks in the F Pod Ad Seg unit. This
request does not appear to be likely to result in the discovery of admissible evidence. If
important, Plaintiff may describe these items. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to
Category Six.
Production of the un-objected to documents shall take place within 30 days of this
Order. Defendant’s motion for Protective Order (D.E. 60) is GRANTED until the District
Court rules on the Memorandum and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(D.E. 50) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above.
ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2016.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3/3