Warren v. State of Washington et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

RICHARD H. WARREN,
6
7
8
9
10
11

No. C11-5686 BHS/KLS

Plaintiff,
v.
DOC, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
STAFFORD CREEK CORRECTIONS
CENTER, ERIC JACKSON, DAN
VAN OGLE, PAT GLEBE, CUS
SHANAHAN, WILLIAM COPLAND,
ABRAM CLARK,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

Defendants.

13
Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard H. Warren’s motion to compel. Plaintiff seeks the
14
15

production of two letters in unredacted form. ECF No. 55. Defendants assert that the Plaintiff is

16

not entitled to the redacted information. ECF No. 59. Having carefully reviewed the motion,

17

response, and balance of the record, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.

18
19
20

FACTS
On August 16, 2012, Defendants received a letter from Plaintiff dated August 14, 2012.
ECF No. 59, Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Kevin Elliott), Attachment A. In this letter, Plaintiff

21
22

requested a letter that Ms. Jerri Davis sent to Associate Superintendent Eric Jackson,

23

documenting her concerns with Plaintiff. Id., Exhibit 1, Attachment A. Plaintiff alleged that Ms.

24

Davis’ letter should have been turned over in response to his previous discovery requests. Id.,

25

Exhibit 1, Attachment A. On August 21, 2011, counsel for Defendants sent a letter to Plaintiff in

26

reply, stating that Ms. Davis’ letter had not previously been provided because it was not deemed
ORDER - 1

1

responsive to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Id., Exhibit 1, Attachment B. A copy of the

2

letter was sent to Plaintiff, along with a copy of another letter that Ms. Davis had previously sent

3

to the facility chaplain. Id., Exhibit 1, Attachment B. The copies of the letters were redacted to

4

omit Ms. Davis’ personal contact information. Id., Exhibit 1, Attachment B.

5
DISCUSSION
6
7

Plaintiff argues that the motion to compel should be granted because the letters were not

8

previously provided in response to his discovery requests. He maintains that defense counsel

9

wrongfully withheld the letters because they contained personal information when he could have

10

simply redacted the personal information and produced them. Alternatively, he argues that he is

11

entitled to production of the letters in their unredacted form because he wants to sue the author of

12

the letter “in a private suit.” ECF No. 55, pp. 3-4.

13
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
14
15

party’s claim or defense .... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the

16

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

17

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party may move for an order

18

compelling disclosure or discovery. Specifically, a party may move for an order to compel a

19

discovery response if a party fails to respond that inspection will be permitted, or fails to permit

20

inspection, as requested under Rule 34. FRCP 37(a)(3)(B)(iv).

21
22

Here, the documents Plaintiff seeks have already been provided to him. Therefore, his

23

motion to compel is moot. According to counsel for Defendants, the letters from Ms. Davis were

24

not initially produced in response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests because they were not deemed

25

responsive to his requests, not because they contained Ms. Davis’ personal address and telephone

26
ORDER - 2

1

numbers. ECF No. 59, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. The letters are also included as part of an

2

exhibit to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 56).

3
4

The Exemption Log relating to the production of the Davis letters reflects that the only
information that was redacted from the letters includes Ms. Davis’ personal address and

5
telephone number. ECF No. 59, Exhibit 1, Attachment B. Plaintiff fails to show how this
6
7

personal information is relevant, or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

8

regarding the claims in his complaint. Plaintiff’s stated reason for his need of the redacted

9

information -- that he may bring a private lawsuit against Ms. Davis -- is completely unrelated to

10
11
12

the claims raised in this lawsuit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 55) is DENIED.

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

13
14
15
16

DATED this 22nd day of October, 2012.

17

A

18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3