OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL [ECF No. 52, ECF No. 55]
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONFERENCE [ECF No. 53]
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Augustus Simmons, a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, has initiated the instant civil case against various Defendants. See ECF No. 4. The incidents relevant to Simmons' case are claimed to have taken place at the State Correctional Institution at Forest.
Now pending before the Court is Simmons' "Motion to Compel Discovery of Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents in Civil Action No. 17-996." ECF No. 55. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be DENIED.1 Simmons has not demonstrated that the Defendants improperly withheld responsive materials. Furthermore, the Defendants have made a compelling showing that their responses balanced Simmons' interest in receiving relevant, responsive information with the Department's interest in not needlessly disclosing sensitive materials that implicate important institutional security interests, or otherwise responding more fulsomely to discovery requests that seek information that is irrelevant to the claims in the case, or which are unduly burdensome.
I. Standard of Review — Motions to Compel
If a party believes in good faith that another party has failed to respond adequately or appropriately to a discovery request, he may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). The rule specifically permits a party to file a motion to compel the production of documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(iv). In this case, Simmons is seeking to compel further responses to document requests that he has propounded to the Department in support of his claims.
Rule 26(b), in turn, generally defines the scope of discovery permitted in a civil action, and prescribes certain limits to that discovery. That rule provides as follows:
(b) Discovery Scope and Limits.
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is considered to be "relevant `if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable that it would be without the evidence' and `the fact is of consequence in determining the action.'" In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL 3519618, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). Rulings regarding the proper scope of discovery, and the extent to which further discovery responses may be compelled, are matters committed to the court's judgment and discretion. Robinson v. Folino, 2016 WL 4678340, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2016) (citation omitted); see also Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). "This far-reaching discretion extends to rulings by United States Magistrate Judges on discovery matters. In this regard: District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes." Cartagena v. Service Source, Inc., 328 F.R.D. 139, 143 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2018) (citing Farmers & Merchs. Nat'l Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572, 585 (D.N.J. 1997))."2
Although decisions relating to the scope of discovery rest with the Court's discretion, that discretion is nevertheless limited by the scope of Rule 26 itself, which reaches only "nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Accordingly, "[t]he Court's discretion in ruling on discovery issues is therefore restricted to valid claims of relevance and privilege." Robinson, 2016 WL 4678340, at *2 (citing Jackson v. Beard, 2014 WL 3868228, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2014) ("[a]lthough the scope of relevance in discovery is far broader than that allowed for evidentiary purposes, it is not without its limits... . Courts will not permit discovery where a request is made in bad faith, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to the general subject matter of the action, or relates to confidential or privileged information")). See also Mercaldo v. Wetzel, 2016 WL 5851958, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2016); Smith v. Rogers, 2017 WL 544598 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2017).
Simmons, as the moving party, "bears the initial burden of showing the relevance of the requested information." Morrison v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D. Pa. 2001). Once that burden is satisfied, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish that the discovery being sought is not relevant or is otherwise inappropriate. Robinson, 2016 WL 4678340, at *2. The Court will review the disputed requests for production in turn.
II. Items Requested for Production
Simmons seeks the following discovery through the productions of documents from the Defendants:
a. Information regarding inmate Dwayne Watts, including that inmate's security file, reports, investigations, admissions and the reasons for that inmate's placement in the STGMU3;
b. Copies of the Department's Security Facility Policy, Policy 6.3.1; and Department Policy 6.5.1;
c. Investigatory reports regarding certain grievances;
d. Medical reports;
c. Psychiatric examination reports;
d. Various prison records, including "X17 reports," summaries, block cards, daily reports, and incident reports from 2016-2017 while Plaintiff was at SCI-Greene;
e. Prison records such as DC-141 and DC-121 summary investigation reports;
f. In-cell video of FB7 cell at SCI-Greene while the Plaintiff was housed there, as well as video of cell FB2;
g. Reports of abuse made against various Department employees;
h. Restricted Release Annual Review sheets;
i. Visitor logs from the RHU from 2012 to 2019;
j. The complete security records from 2009 to 2018;
k. Video evidence related to Simmons' misconduct B437660;
l. The job description and duties for the Psychiatric Assistant employees within the Department;
m. A "clear version" of Corrections Officer Brooks' account of events via an affidavit.
To summarize then, Simmons seeks production of the following types of information: information concerning other inmates; copies of Departmental Policies and internal reports; medical and mental health records; and an affidavit from a nonparty. The Defendants have lodged several objections to producing these documents. See generally ECF No.55-2. The Court finds the Defendants' objections to be well-taken and will deny Simmons' motion to compel.
III. Discussion
A hearing on the Plaintiff's motion was held on June 25, 2019. The Court resolves these discovery disputes as follows:
Item requested by Nature of Plaintiff's Ruling
Plaintiff for Defendants' Reply/Argument
production objection
Security file, Relevance. Plaintiff Watts has signed a The Motion to
investigations, seeks prohibited declaration to testify compel is DENIED.
admissions, and information on other as a witness and The information
reasons for placement inmates, seeks supply supporting concerning other
in the STGMU of confidential facts for Plaintiff's inmates is prohibited
inmate Dwayne information that case, Watts records per DOC policy. See,
Watts. could put the safety will show the e.g., Sloan v. Murray,
and security of the difference between an 2013 WL 5551162, at
prison in jeopardy active gang member *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 8,
(Watts) and an 2013) (denying
inactive gang motion to compel
member (Simmons, grievance responses
since August, 2016); that concerned other
Plaintiff contends that inmates, citing DOC
the Defendants policy prohibiting
opened the door to inmates from
allow him to review receiving information
any security filings about one another);
by claiming he is a Torres v. Harris,
member/leader of a 2019 WL 265804, *1
gang. (M.D. Pa. Jan. 18,
2019).
Department Policies Plaintiff seeks Without this The motion to
6.3.1 (Facility confidential argument Plaintiff compel is DENIED.
Security) and 6.5.1 information that will be unable to This information is
(Security Level S could put the safety build an adequate and not discoverable. See
Housing Unit Policy) and security of the fair argument Rosa-Diaz v. Harry,
prison in jeopardy. pertaining to staff 2018 WL 6322967
misconduct. (M.D. Pa. Dec. 4,
2018); Coit v.
Garman, 2018 WL
3818853, *2 (M.D.
Pa. Aug. 10, 2018).
Grievance The request for Defendants are The Motion to
Investigation Reports production is vague, playing "word Compel production of
— independent the term games." this material is
investigation reports, "investigation DENIED as MOOT.
notes completed by reports" is undefined; Counsel for the
staff Defendants provided Defendants has
Plaintiff with copies indicated he will
of the grievance contact the prison in
records an attempt to secure
any other information
relating to the
Grievance at issue.
In the event there is
additional
information available,
it will be forwarded
to the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff's medical, The request for The records are The Motion to
dental, and production is vague, relevant because Compel is DENIED.
psychiatric/mental overbroad, unduly Plaintiff is pursuing a Counsel for the
health records. burdensome, not claim against medical Defendants stated
proportional to the staff and is that the Plaintiff's
needs of this case; attempting to prove medical records have
relevancy, Plaintiff personal damage as a been provided to him.
seeks confidential result of his As to mental health
information that confinement in the records specifically,
could put the safety RHU. the Court agrees that
and security of the the security concerns
prison in jeopardy; related to the
inmates are not privy production of any
to mental health mental health records
records for reasons of are justified. See
security and to ensure Carter v. Baumcratz,
that programming 2019 WL 652322, *2
and treatment are not (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15,
compromised. 2019) (citing Banks v.
Beard, 2013 WL
3773837, at *3 (M.D.
Pa. July 17, 2013)
("With respect to the
mental health
records, were they
made available to
inmates or the public,
DOC professionals
would tend to refrain
from entering candid
opinions and
evaluations.
Consequently,
decision-makers
would not have the
benefit of honest
observations from
professionals in the
field. Moreover, if an
inmate knows how
DOC staff will
evaluate him and how
particular behaviors
are likely to be
interpreted, he is
capable of
manipulating the
resulting
determination, which
could lead to
inaccurate
assessments,
improper institutional
placements, and
possible premature
release from custody.
Based on the
foregoing, defendants
will not be compelled
to produce any
portion of plaintiff's
mental health
record.").
X17 Reports, Plaintiff's requested The requested The Motion to
summary, block documents are not documents will reveal Compel is DENIED.
cards, daily reports, relevant. Further, the the contradictions, The requested
incident reports, yard, Defendants have misconducts, and material from 2017
etc., from 2016 to provided these manipulations by was provided to the
2017 while Plaintiff documents to the staff to abuse the Plaintiff. The
was at SCI-Greene Plaintiff for 2017. Plaintiff as well as material from 2016
their attempts to predates his claims in
cover up the denial of this case and is not
his haircuts. relevant.
DC-141, B937660, Defendants maintain Plaintiff contends that The motion to
DC-121, summary of that this request is the DC-121 is the compel is DENIED.
investigation and vague. They do not summary of As noted above,
report by correctional understand what is investigations report Counsel for the
supervisor being requested. In made by staff and Defendant will
an attempt to gives more detail to contact the prison to
respond, they the investigation done determine if any
provided the Plaintiff by the supervising other information is
with the requested staff to determine available regarding
misconduct report. credibility of the the grievance in
misconduct report. question.
Video of cell FB7 at The request is vague, Plaintiff argues that The Court agrees.
SCI Greene on each overbroad, unduly this is not a vague The Motion to
date Plaintiff was burdensome. It is not request: video will Compel is DENIED.
kept in his cell proportional to the show that the staff The request does not
needs of the case and never turned the specify a date and
is irrelevant. lights off and P was time of the recording
kept in his cell with requested. It is also
the lights on twenty-four unduly burdensome
hours a day, for the Defendants to
seven days a week. produced video
recordings of the
entirety of Plaintiff's
time at SCI-Green.
Video of cell FB2 at This request is vague, Plaintiff argues that The Court agrees.
SCI Greene on date overbroad, unduly this is not a vague The Motion to
Plaintiff was kept in burdensome, and not request: video will Compel is DENIED.
his cell proportional to the show that the staff The request does not
needs of the case. never turned the specify a date and
Further, it is lights off and time of the recording
irrelevant. Plaintiff was kept in requested. It is also
his cell with the lights unduly burdensome
on twenty-for hours a for the Defendants to
day, seven days. a produced video
week. recordings of the
entirety of Plaintiff's
time at SCI-Green.
All reports of abuse Defendants argue that Plaintiff argues that The Motion to
made against c/p this request is vague, this provides him Compel is DENIED.
Core, Gillespie, overbroad, unduly with relevant Prior bad acts are
Hennessey, Albonde, burdensome, not evidence of inadmissible. See
Yourkin, Kennedy, proportional to the Defendants' prior bad Summers v. Wetzel,
while at SCI-Green burden and expense acts that could 2018 WL 6112066,
on Defendants in correlate with the *7 (E.D. Pa. April 30,
searching for and allegations of his 2015). Further,
producing the claims. because the requested
documents. They information would
contend further that contain information
material would about other inmates,
contain confidential it is confidential and
information about not discoverable.
other inmates to See, e.g., Allen v.
which the Plaintiff is Eckard, 2019 WL
not entitled 1099001, *3-4 (M.D.
Pa. March 8, 2019).
Plaintiff's restricted Defendants' argue Plaintiff argues that The Motion to
annual review sheet that this request seeks the requested Compel is DENIED.
for SCI-Greene from confidential information will See, e.g., Allen v.
2016-2017 information, could provide relevant Eckard, 2019 WL
jeopardize safety and mental health 1099001, *4 (M.D.
security, seeks mental information that Pa. March 8, 2019).
health treatment "shall be credible
records, and is facts to support
irrelevant. Plaintiff's mental
health claims of
deliberate
indifference"
Plaintiff asks for Defendants' argue Plaintiff The Motion to
population records that this request is acknowledges that Compel is DENIED.
and visitor logs from overbroad, vague, request is overbroad, See, e.g., Rister v.
2012 to 2019 while and not proportional but not burdensome Lamas, 2012 WL
he was in the RHU. to the needs of the because he has only 3758092, *4 (M.D.
case. They also had 1 visitor in 8 Pa. Aug. 28., 2012).
contend it is years. He claims to The Court agrees that
irrelevant. need these records to his request for seven
correlate mental years of visitor and
health, psychology population logs is
about his family unduly burdensome.
while he was in the
RHU
Plaintiff requests full Defendants counter Plaintiff argues that The Motion to
and complete security that this request is because the Compel is DENIED.
records from 2009 to overbroad, vague, not Defendants accuse Allowing Plaintiff
2018. proportional, him of gang access to such
relevance, and seeks affiliation via information would
confidential religious beliefs, the obviously create a
information that security record must substantial security
could affect safety be examined to risk. See Bracey v.
and security. challenge that Price, 2012 WL
accusation. 849865, *3 (W.D. Pa.
March 13, 2012)
(citing Paluch v.
Dawson, 2007 WL
4375937 (M.D. Pa.
Dec. 12, 2007).
Video evidence of The Defendants Plaintiff argues that The Motion to
misconduct charge submit that no video the Video should Compel is DENIED.
B937660 exists to comply with have been preserved. The Defendants
this request. cannot produce what
does not exist.
Cooper v. Sherman,
2018 WL 5841752 *5
(M.D. Pa. Nov. 8,
2018); Cotton v.
Campbell, 2016 WL
2742386, *2 (D. Del.
May 10, 2016).
Plaintiff asks for Defendants contend Plaintiff counters that The Motion to
documents relating to that this request is the requested Compel is DENIED.
PSA Chriovitti's irrelevant, not documents are Per DOC policy,
duties, qualifications, proportional, relevant to the lack of inmates are not
and employment confidential mental health entitled to
position/status. information which treatment provided, confidential
could jeopardize and that the information of
safety and security. information needed to Department
show mandated duty employees. See, e.g.,
and obligations of Johnson v. Miskell,
this Defendant. 2017 WL 3701784,
*3 (M.D. Pa. Aug.
28, 2017).
PSA (psychologist Relevancy, not Relevant to the lack The Motion to
secretary assistant) proportional, of mental health Compel is DENIED.
duties, obligations, confidential treatment provided, Per DOC policy,
and job descriptions information which information needed to inmates are not
could jeopardize show mandated duty entitled to
safety and security and obligations confidential
information of
Department
employees. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Miskell,
2017 WL 3701784,
*3 (M.D. Pa. Aug.
28, 2017).
A clear version of c/o Defendants object to Plaintiff maintains The Motion to
Brooks account of this request as that the misconduct Compel is DENIED.
events that took place irrelevant, arguing report is vague, and The Defendants have
on B937660 via that the written only relies on provided the Plaintiff
affidavit misconduct document misconduct charges with the misconduct
speaks for itself. for any real narrative report. A Department
or text. He wants the employee cannot be
CO to state in writing compelled to file an
the events that he affidavit.
witnessed.
As the Court explained to the Plaintiff at the hearing, he may propound written discovery upon the Defendants' requesting that they produce any evidence upon which they rely as support for their position that he is engaged in gang activity or that his religion is a pretext for gang activity or organization. Such discovery also may request that Defendants identify any person with knowledge of facts relating to these subjects and that Defendants summarize the factual knowledge of each person identified. Further, as was also explained to the Plaintiff, in opposing any motion for summary judgment that may be filed in this case, he may file his own declaration, which will be considered as evidence to the extent it is based upon his own personal knowledge. See, e.g., Lee v. Warden C. Link, 2019 WL 2504075, *7 n.11 (E.D. Pa. June 13, 2019) (citing Marten v. Burns, 2015 WL 1431079, *4-5 (W.D. Pa. March 27, 2015) (denying summary judgment where plaintiff produced affidavits from fellow inmates, his own declaration, defendants' responses to requests for admission, and a letter plaintiff wrote to the superintendent describing blind spots); Wilson v. Ebbert, 2019 WL 160349, *5 n.2 (M.D. Pa. April 16, 2019).
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [ECF No. 55] is DENIED.
So ordered.
