ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Dennis Hamilton is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on February 18, 2010. (ECF No.1.) This action is currently proceeding on the original Complaint on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for: (1) excessive force, against defendants Hart, Doe Lieutenant,
On November 2, 2016, the Court held a Mandatory Scheduling Conference. During this conference, the parties each indicated they had each served discovery and defendants had made some initial production and objections. Plaintiff described a number of discovery requests that he had served on Defendants and expressed his dissatisfaction with Defendants' objections and responses to those requests. Among other things, Plaintiff requested:
Plaintiff also indicated that he had served Defendants with additional discovery requests (some of which concerned the above information) one week ago, although Defendants indicated that they had not received those requests.
The Court heard argument with respect to these discovery requests. It ordered certain disclosure of information and documents as indicated below, and also set forth a procedure for further disclosures and responses.
Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, "[e]vidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable that it would be without the evidence, and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." As discussed on the record, any incidents related to misconduct or discipline of any of the Defendants after the incident in question are not relevant to assess whether Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff or failed to treat Plaintiff during the incident. Defendants' relevance objection to this request for documents is thus sustained.
Defendants represent that the only defendant with any prior complaint against him is Defendant Ronquillo. That complaint did not involve the use of pepper spray. Defendants' relevance objection to this request for documents is thus sustained.
Defendants acknowledge that they have been unable to locate these policies, but are continuing to search for them. Defendants are thus directed to continue to search for these documents and produce them within
Defendants object to this request based on relevance. Plaintiff's theory of relevance is based on his allegation that Defendants used excessive force against him only after he refused to be placed in a cell with another inmate. Plaintiff argues that any documents showing that cellmates injure each other would be relevant to show that his fear of being placed in a cell with another inmate was justified. There is no indication that Plaintiff had access to any such documents or studies at the time of the incident, although he presumably was subjectively aware that inmates sometimes injure their cellmates.
The Court does not find that the requested documents are sufficiently relevant to outweigh the burden involved in locating such documents, not to mention the confidentiality and security concerns associated with production of records involving other inmates. Prior incidents of cellmate assaults do not make it more or less likely that any of the Defendants used excessive force against Plaintiff, failed to treat Plaintiff, or retaliated against Plaintiff. Even assuming that Plaintiff's theory is correct that he refused a cellmate due to concern on his safety, that does not shed light on the amount of force because such force will be evaluated against the physical resistance and force that Plaintiff used against the officers. In other words, Defendants have not contended that they used force in order to push Plaintiff into a cell—Defendants contend that they used force because Plaintiff was threatening Defendants. The reason behind Plaintiff's force, if any, has only tangential relevance to this case.
Moreover, the requested documents would not shed any light on Plaintiff's state of mind at that time because he did not have access to any such documents or studies. While Plaintiff may certainly testify about his own subjective beliefs at the time of the incident, after the fact documents regarding unrelated incidents are not relevant.
Defendants also represented that gathering such information would be unduly burdensome because it would require a review of every inmate file to determine if it contained information regarding such incidents. Defendants represented that there was no central location for cellmate assaults.
Accordingly, Defendants' objection is sustained.
Defendants object to this request because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. They also note that the compilation of this information would require sorting through the medical records of other inmates, which are protected by the right to privacy.
The Court agrees that the request, as phrased, is overbroad and demands more information than is commensurate to Plaintiff's claims.
However, information concerning the past use of pepper spray by Defendants is arguably relevant as it relates to the decontamination protocols that Defendants allege they were following. Defendants contend that, at the time of the incident, it was a standard policy or practice to allow a pepper sprayed inmate to "decontaminate by air," rather than decontaminating the inmate using clean water. Defendants have also contended that they intend to show that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they followed that standard policy or practice in this instance. Evidence that they followed that practice in previous instances involving pepper spray would support the contention that they understood decontamination by air to be an accepted practice. Evidence that they followed an alternative decontamination method in previous instances, on the other hand, could indicate that Plaintiff was singled out for different treatment in conscious disregard of standard practices.
"[C]ourts have the duty to pare down overbroad discovery requests under Rule 26(b)(2)." Rowlin v. Alabama Dept. of Public Safety, 200 F.R.D. 459, 461 (M.D. Ala. 2001), citing Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990); Roberts v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594, 602 (D. Nev. 2016) ("the Supreme Court and the Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules have encouraged trial courts to exercise their broad discretion to limit and tailor discovery to avoid abuse and overuse."). Thus, the Court will allow Plaintiff's request but will narrow the scope of the requested information to elicit only information about the named Defendants. In particular, Defendants shall respond to the following questions:
Defendants shall serve their responses to these interrogatories on Plaintiff within
Plaintiff requests information regarding which Defendants escorted him from administrative segregation building B114 to building D2115. To the extent Plaintiff seeks identifying information about which Defendants escorted him between these buildings, the Court finds nothing objectionable. Defendants shall provide this information to Plaintiff within
Plaintiff asks for an interrogatory to Defendant Bogle about her medical training and practices in decontaminating inmates who have been pepper sprayed. The Court has narrowed the scope of information sought from Defendant Bogle to:
Defendant Bogle shall serve her response to this interrogatory on Plaintiff within
As noted above, Plaintiff noted that he served further discovery requests on Defendants over one week before the scheduling conference. Defendants, however, had not yet received these requests. Plaintiff also filed documents with the Court, but the Court had not yet received those documents at the time of the scheduling conference. The Court has now received those documents, however. Defendants are instructed to notify Plaintiff and the Court if they have not received Plaintiff's discovery requests within
A separate order scheduling this case will issue shortly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
