MARGARET J. KRAVCHUK, Magistrate Judge.
Robert Goguen filed a complaint in state court on August 30, 2011, alleging that five officers from the Somerset County Jail violated his constitutional rights by the manner in which the officers enforced jail regulations regarding Goguen's legal materials and their retaliatory actions aimed at Goguen. The complaint was 10 pages long. The defendants removed the action to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Without objection by the defendants (See ECF No. 20), Goguen filed his second amended complaint which is fifty-eight pages long and names sixteen defendants. The sufficiency of the pleadings has never been tested because none of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss and this matter was not subject to mandatory screening as would be a complaint that was filed in this Court accompanied by an in forma pauperis application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Instead, discovery commenced and has proceeded in a very haphazard fashion up until now, judging from the various pleadings that have been filed by both sides. At this point there is a discovery deadline of October 1, 2012, following an extension granted at the defendants' request; I granted their request in part to address the discovery issues raised by plaintiff in two pleadings filed with this Court. (Motion to Amend Scheduling Order re: Number of Interrogatories (ECF No. 28) and Motion for Reconsideration on Motion to Compel (ECF No. 30).
The first order of business in my attempt to iron out this discovery dispute necessarily involves an attempt to ascertain what Goguen is claiming in his fifty-eight page second amended claim and who the defendants actually are. Some background information is necessary. Goguen is a pretrial detainee awaiting the resolution of federal charges.
As I read the Second Amended Complaint it concerns events stretching from May 2011 through and including December 10, 2011, at the Somerset County Jail. Goguen alleges that following receipt of a response to his complaints from the Maine Department of Corrections Compliance Manager he was immediately transferred out of the facility. (Second Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 295-296.) His claims for relief include a claim that certain defendants used administrative segregation based on fabricated reports in violation of his due process rights, (id., ¶ 321) a claim that his legal materials were confiscated in violation of his First and Sixth Amendment rights, (id., ¶ 322) a claim that he was denied administrative segregation reviews for retaliatory reasons, (id., ¶ 323), a claim that he was deliberately prosecuted by prison officials in retaliation for filing grievances (id., ¶ 324), a claim that the jail developed a policy and officers did other things to him with the purpose of violating his due process rights (id., ¶ 325-326), a claim that he received inadequate notice of rule violations violated his due process rights (id., ¶ 327), a claim regarding exculpatory evidence being denied (id., ¶ 328), a claim that other defendants fabricated evidence in violation of his due process rights (id., ¶ 329), a claim that the visual body cavity searches were unconstitutional (id., ¶ 330-331), a claim regarding the unauthorized seizure of unique property (drawings made by Goguen as gifts for his family) from his cell (id., ¶ 332), a claim regarding unsanitary food service (id., ¶ 333), a claim regarding out of recreation deprivation (id., ¶ 334), a claim regarding failing to provide a clean and sanitary cell (id., ¶ 335), and a general claim that all of the defendants engaged in some sort of conspiracy to deprive Goguen of his constitutional rights, (id., ¶ 336). Goguen seeks injunctive relief, punitive damages, and compensatory damages. The injunctive relief component is essentially moot because Goguen is no longer at the Somerset County Jail. (ECF No. 18.) Goguen's complaint alleges as to each defendant which of the claims are applicable, so for instance, only defendant David Allen is implicated in the unauthorized seizure of the "irreplaceable unique property" from plaintiff. (Second Amended Compl., ¶¶ 261-264, 332.) I provide this background in order to enable the parties and the Court to better understand the discovery rulings discussed below.
Goguen is a pro se prisoner litigant. As such it is necessary that he be given leeway under Dist. Of Me. Local Rule 26(b) and be allowed, when appropriate, to file written discovery motions without the prior approval of a judicial officer. As his complaint makes clear, conducting telephonic discovery conferences with a prisoner litigant can be frustrating for the litigants and the Court. (See id., ¶¶ 130-136)(describing a telephone conference scheduled before me and reflected in the Report of Telephone Conference and Order,
On June 21, 2012, Goguen filed a motion to amend the existing scheduling order (ECF No. 28) in order to relieve him from the thirty interrogatory limit set by that order. Goguen makes the persuasive argument that as a pro se prisoner litigant he is effectively unable to conduct any depositions and thus is in need of additional written discovery. I do not disagree with that contention, but the issue before me is what reasonable discovery should be allowed in these circumstances, considering the allegations in the second amended complaint and the nature of the present interrogatories. I will first outline the scope of the dispute and the nature of defendants' objection.
The interrogatories in dispute are those numbered 6, 8, 9, and 10 and they are set forth below, along with defendant Sean P. Maguire's response:
Based upon the objections and correspondence filed with the Court it appears that Goguen has requested each of the sixteen individual defendants personally answer these four interrogatories and the answers provided have only been those of Sean/Shawn P. Maguire
After careful review of the underlying Second Amended Complaint, the current interrogatories and responses, and the written arguments of both sides, I now grant in part the motion to amend the scheduling order to increase the number of interrogatories by requiring individual responses, subject to the following limitations:
To the extent this discovery order results in the defendants providing more than 30 interrogatory answers, the motion to amend scheduling order is granted in part. Complete answers shall be provided by August 27, 2012.
Goguen has also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of my previous order to deny his motion to compel discovery. (See ECF No. 30, 31, and ECF No. 22.) I denied the motion to compel because I was satisfied that given the procedural posture of the case the defendants' response to the motion to compel reciting that significant responsive materials and answers had indeed been provided, an order compelling them to answer every interrogatory and request for production was not warranted. Goguen's motion to compel was based on procedural arguments that were, in my view, meritless. I have no reason to reconsider that order beyond my specific orders on the motion to amend scheduling order and therefore the motion for reconsideration is denied as untimely because the order on the motion to compel was entered well over a month prior to the motion for reconsideration.
Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.