Rountree v. Clarke et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 4/15/2016. (slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
PIPER A. ROUNTREE
Plaintiff,
v.

HAROLD CLARKE, ET AL.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:15CV00220

ORDER

By: Robert S. Ballou
United States Magistrate Judge

By order entered January 26, 2016, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and
directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days, after her receipt of discovery.
Thereafter, the court granted her another 30 days to submit her amended complaint. Now,
plaintiff moves to compel additional responses from Defendant Harold Clarke to her requests for
production 4-8. After review of Clarke’s objections and plaintiff’s motion to compel additional
responses from Clarke, it is now ORDERED that defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s requests
for production are SUSTAINED as proper,1 and plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 38) is
DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff and to counsel of
record for the defendants.
Enter: April 15, 2016

/s/ Robert S. Ballou
Robert S. Ballou
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Plaintiff may not use discovery requests to obtain free photocopies from defendant of information that she
could obtain by other means, such as items in her central file or results of surveys conducted by Fluvanna
Correctional Center for Women (“FCCW”). Nor may she obtain the personal addresses of retired prison employees
or require Clarke to outline his personal beliefs about Muslims and Buddhists. Plaintiff also may not use a motion
to compel to reformulate overly broad or burdensome requests into more particularized and limited requests; rather,
she may serve Clarke or other appropriate defendant(s) with new, properly limited requests for production.