Wilson v. United States et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 56 MOTION to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint; Plaintiff shall have through and including 7/5/2019 in which to file her amended complaint; sustaining in part and overruling in part West Virginia Division of Corr ections' 52 Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Documents; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 57 MOTION to Compel; directing the DOC to provide to Plaintiff the documents and information described herein by the specified dates. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 6/12/2019. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
TAMMY SHERRELL WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00890

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION
OF CORRECTIONS
WEXFORD MEDICAL; and
ADMINISTRATION and STAFF
AT FAULT (1990 through present),
Defendants .
ORDER
Pending are several motions/documents related to initial disclosures and
discovery, including the following:
1. West Virginia Division of Corrections’ (“DOC”) Objections to Plaintiff’s Request
for Documents, (ECF No. 52);
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to File Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 56);
and
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 57).
The issues have been fully briefed by the parties. For the reasons that follow, the Court
SUSTAINS, in part, and OVERRULES, in part, the DOC’s objections and
correspondingly GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
Furthermore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend. Plaintiff shall have
through and including July 5, 2019 in which to file her amended complaint.

1

I.

Introduction
On April 1, 2019, Defendants were instructed to provide some preliminary

disclosures to Plaintiff in order to assist her in identifying individuals she wished to add
as parties to this civil action. (ECF No. 47) In addition, the parties were given deadlines
in which to conduct discovery. (Id. at 4). To facilitate the production of the preliminary
disclosures, Plaintiff was ordered to provide to the DOC a list “indicating the specific
institutional records—such as incident reports, log books, and other reports relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims—that Plaintiff believes are necessary to identify parties to be joined in
this litigation.” (Id. at 2). Plaintiff did submit such a list to the DOC; however, the DOC
believed the list was broader in scope than that ordered by the Court and, thus, refused to
produce certain materials. Accordingly, a substantial portion of the DOC’s objections to
Plaintiff’s list is based on the contention that the list seeks information beyond that
ordered by the Court.
Having reviewed the list, the Court agrees that a portion of the requested
documents exceed the scope of the specific order pertaining to the identification of
potential defendants. Notwithstanding this fact, because Plaintiff was concurrently
permitted to submit written discovery, the undersigned has construed requests that are
beyond the scope of the order as stand-alone requests for the production of documents.
For that reason, the DOC’s objections to requests based solely on their relevance to the
order are DENIED and each contested request is examined on its merits.
II.

Discussion
A. Request 1
In request 1, Plaintiff asked for documents related to a civil rights complaint she

attempted to file in 2010. Plaintiff states that the draft complaint and substantiating
2

documents were removed from her cell and never returned. She subsequently was
disciplined by Lakin Correctional Center (“LCC”) for allegedly taking the complaint form
and instructions from the facility’s library. Defendant objected to request 1 on the basis
of scope, which Plaintiff argues is a blanket objection signifying Defendant’s arbitrary and
capricious compliance with discovery obligations. Although Defendant also contends that
request 1 fails to identify documents to be produced, it appears to the undersigned that
Plaintiff wants her draft civil rights complaint and substantiating documentation
returned.
The Court notes that the incident described by Plaintiff is quite remote in time,
making her need for the documents questionable. While Plaintiff claims that documents
from as long as twelve years ago are relevant to show continuing retaliation and
discrimination, a section 1983 case typically is designed to remedy discrete acts of
retaliation and discrimination. Once a plaintiff knew or should have known of the
retaliation or discrimination, the statute of limitations begins to run and is not tolled by
subsequent, unrelated episodes of discrimination or retaliation. Nonetheless, because
discovery has just started in this case, the Court OVERRULES the DOC’s objection to
this request; GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel; and ORDERS the DOC to provide
Plaintiff, on or before June 21, 2019, with a copy of her draft 2010 civil rights complaint
and supporting documentation if the DOC retains possession of these documents.
B. Request 2
In request 2, Plaintiff seeks documentation establishing the treatment of inmates
at Mount Olive Correctional Center (“MOCC”). Plaintiff claims that the inmates housed
at MOCC are males, who committed crimes similar in severity to those committed by the
female inmates at LCC, and that the male inmates at MOCC are treated better than the
3

female inmates at LCC. Plaintiff claims the male DOC inmates have better educational
opportunities, recreation options, equipment, and accommodations. The DOC again
objects to the request on the basis of scope. Having considered the request, which is
chronologically broad and seeks substantial documentation—much of which is likely
irrelevant—the Court SUSTAINS the objection, in part, and GRANTS, in part, the
motion to compel. The DOC is ORDERED to provide the following information to
Plaintiff within the next thirty (30) days: to the extent there are institutional differences
between MOCC and LCC as to how the inmates are treated, the DOC must state in writing
the nature of the differences with respect to inmate pay levels, educational opportunities,
recreation, open houses, visitation before and after parole hearings, dress code,
accommodations, and facility “extra incentive activities.” The time period to be reviewed
for differences, if any, is May 1, 2016 through the present. At this point, the DOC is
not required to produce any written policies, procedures, or administrative memoranda
from either facility.
C. Request 3
Plaintiff seeks information regarding the tap water and environmental information
at LCC. The Court SUSTAINS the DOC’s objection and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to
compel as this information does not appear relevant to the issues in the complaint.
D. Requests 4, 5, 6
In these requests, Plaintiff asks for various information related to a wrist injury she
suffered while incarcerated at LCC. The DOC objected to portions of the requests on the
grounds of scope and lack of responsive documents. The Court OVERRULES the DOC’s
objections, in part, and GRANTS the motion to compel, in part, as follows: on or before
June 21, 2019, the DOC shall provide Plaintiff with materials in response to request 4(c),
4

(f), and (g). The objections are SUSTAINED and the motion to compel is DENIED as
to request 5(e) and request 6(e) as the DOC has no responsive documents and to request
5(f) and request 6(f), because they are duplicative of request 4(g). The DOC shall provide
any documentation in its possession that was not already provided and that relates to
Plaintiff’s wrist injury, including all stages of its treatment and healing.
E. Request 7
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and the DOC’s objections are
OVERRULED. To the extent the DOC has documents responsive to this request, they
shall be produced to Plaintiff on or before June 21, 2019.
F. Requests 8 and 9
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED, and the DOC’s objections are
OVERRULED. To the extent the DOC has documents responsive to these requests, they
shall be produced to Plaintiff on or before June 21, 2019.
G. Request 10
This request asks for the 2010 civil rights complaint and supporting materials. As
this request is duplicative of request 1, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
H. Requests 11, 12
Plaintiff complains that her cell was searched on May 7, 2018 and that some of her
religious worship and sentimental items were taken. She asks for documents related to
that search and for policies governing the searches. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
GRANTED, and the objections states are OVERRULED. To the extent materials exist,
the DOC shall provide to Plaintiff on or before June 21, 2019 documents responsive to
request 11 (c), (d), and (e) and request 12. If any portion of the policies are withheld, the
DOC should provide a reason for non-production.
5

I. Request 13
In this request, Plaintiff asks for the entire operations manual of MOCC, including
administrative memoranda, and the “non-viewable” policy directives and ACA standards
at LCC, among other things. The DOC’s objections to this request are SUSTAINED, and
the motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request is far too broad in both subject
matter and time frame and is not proportional to the needs of this case; therefore, the
request is beyond the scope of discovery permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). Plaintiff may
serve the DOC with a more focused document request after receiving the information
sought in request 2.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel of
record.
ENTERED: June 12, 2019

6