Opinion
5:22-cv-197-MTT-MSH
07-19-2023
DELLWAYNE PRICE, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT WHITE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHEN HYLES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dellwayne Price's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 75)and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 61) and Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 79). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is Denied. Likewise, Defendants' Motion to Stay is Denied, and it is Recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be Denied.
Also pending is Plaintiff's ninth motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 74) and a Motion for Settlement (ECF No. 80). All his previous motions for counsel have been denied. For the reasons stated in previous orders, that motion is again Denied. Likewise, his motion for a settlement is improper and is Denied.
DISCUSSION
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on March 3, 2023 (ECF No. 61). Defendants' motion is based on Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with the Court's Order directing him to respond to Defendants' First Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Defendants' First Interrogatories to Plaintiff. Order 1-3, Jan. 17, 2023, ECF No. 58. Despite being notified of Defendants' motion to dismiss and being informed that, if he did not respond within 21 days, the statements in Defendants' motion may be accepted as uncontested and correct, Plaintiff did not file a brief in response to Defendants' motion. Order to Respond 1-2, ECF No 62.
In lieu of responding to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a “Memorandum of Law to the Court” on June 26, 2023 (ECF No. 73). He asks the Court “not to consider this ‘extrinsic evidence,' since a motion to dismiss is supposed to consider only the adequacy of the complaint.” Pl.'s Mem. to the Court 1, ECF No. 73. It is not clear what “extrinsic evidence” Plaintiff refers to. He goes on to insinuate the Clerk of Court has not filed certain documents Plaintiff has submitted. Pl.'s Mem. to the Clerk at 1-2, ECF No. 73-1. He states that refusing to record documents he has deposited is a “crime against justice under statutes at large.” Id. at 1. He asserts he does not “accept any third party interveners” and does not consent to representation from any lawyers or the Clerk of Court. Id. at 1-2. While not making any accusations outright, Plaintiff seems to insinuate the Court has not docketed documents he has submitted or has conspired to hinder his case.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery
On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 75). In his motion, he requests an order to compel Defendants to answer certain interrogatories. Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Discovery 1-2, ECF No. 75. Additionally, he seeks an order pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Defendants to pay Plaintiff $2,000 as “reasonable expenses” because Defendants' “refusal to answer the interrogatories or produce the documents had no substantial justification.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a document titled “Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents,” in which he provides eighteen numbered interrogatories. Pl.'s Request for Discovery 2-4, ECF No. 76. Notably, many of these are the same interrogatories Plaintiff claims were not answered in his motion to compel discovery. Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Discovery 1-2. It is unclear to the Court how Defendants could have previously responded to Plaintiff's interrogatories if they were sent on the same date he filed the motion to compel discovery, particularly since Plaintiff's request for discovery is dated the same day as his motion to compel-June 15, 2023. Id. at 7; Pl.'s Request for Discovery 4.
Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion on June 30, 2023 (ECF No. 78). Defendants state the discovery requested in Plaintiff's motion was not served on them prior to when Plaintiff filed his motion to compel. Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel 1-2, ECF No. 78. Plaintiff claims he submitted a written request for Defendants to respond to these interrogatories on December 8, 2022, but he has not received an answer. Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Discovery 2-3. He does not attach any evidence showing he sent discovery or a written request at that time. Defendants aver this is the first time they have seen these requests, and that they received no such communication from Plaintiff. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel 1-2.
Under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, “[m]otions to compel disclosure or discovery will not be considered unless they contain a statement certifying that movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the opposing party in an effort to secure the information without court action.” M.D. Ga. L. R. 37. Plaintiff failed to attach a statement indicating he attempted to confer with Defendants concerning the discovery requests raised in his motion to compel. Plaintiff claims he sent a written request for responses, but this alone does not meet the requirements of Local Rule 37, particularly because Defendants dispute any such communication. Moreover, the Court is not convinced Plaintiff previously submitted his discovery request to Defendants prior to filing his motion. Therefore, his motion to compel is Denied. Defendants are reminded that the denial of Plaintiff's motion does not obviate their obligation to comply with discovery and respond to Plaintiff's requests now that they are undeniably aware of the requests.
II. Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings
On June 30, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay the proceedings, including discovery, pending resolution of their motion to dismiss. Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 79. Defendants argue that an order “granting Defendants' motion to dismiss would make discovery and further dispositive motions unnecessary on many if not all of Plaintiff's claims.” Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Stay 1, ECF No. 79-1.
The Court has discretion to alter the sequence of discovery “for the convenience of the parties . . . and in the interests of justice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d). While it might convenience Defendants to not have to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Court does not find this approach to be in the interests of justice. As discussed further below, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied; therefore, their motion to stay the proceedings is Denied. Upon resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court will, if necessary, file a scheduling and discovery order.
III. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41 based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order to adequately respond to Defendants' interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Br. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 61-3. They contend “Plaintiff did not send a responsive answer” to the interrogatories at issue and the documents he produced-which consisted of eleven health service forms-contained “no context or explanations.” Id. On this basis, they request that Plaintiff's action be dismissed. Id. at 2. The Court disagrees.
A. Plaintiff's Responses
The Court has reviewed Defendants' discovery requests and Plaintiff's responses and finds they do not presently warrant the harsh sanction of dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. First, Defendants contend Plaintiff did not properly respond to their Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3. Br. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2.
In Interrogatory 1, Defendants asked Plaintiff to provide the “name, address, and telephone number” of anyone with personal knowledge about the claims in Plaintiff's complaint. Attach. B to Defs.' Mot. to Compel 4, ECF No. 55-2. In his response, Plaintiff listed several names-including Defendants'-and stated his “confinement in Macon State Prison segregation . . . limit[ed his] ability” to obtain their contact information. Attach. A to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2, ECF No. 61-1. Interrogatory 2 asked Plaintiff to “state the name, address, and telephone number of each person who may or will be called as a witness at the trial of this matter . . . [and] a summary of the testimony each is expected to give.” Attach. B to Defs.' Mot. to Compel 4. Plaintiff repeated his assertion that his confinement in segregation hinders his ability to provide this information. Attach. A to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2.
In Interrogatory 3, Plaintiff was asked to specifically identify all documents related to this matter, describe how these documents could be identified, and provide information about the person who has custody or control of the documents. Attach. B to Defs.' Mot. to Compel 4-5. Alternatively, Plaintiff could attach the documents to his answers. Id. at 5. Plaintiff first stated Warden Smith had “full custody of the camera footage at Macon State Prison[.]” Attach. A to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2. He claimed this footage corroborates the statements made in his complaint. Id. Next, he mentioned his grievances, stated Warden Smith has custody over those documents, and that the grievances would show exhaustion of his administrative remedies and contain a description of the incident described in his complaint. Id. He stated his grievance receipts are in his own custody and would show the grievances were received. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff also stated he has custody of his “sick calls,” which he claims describe the injuries he allegedly sustained. Id. at 3. Plaintiff referred to “grievance response[s]” in Warden Smith's custody, and that these show his matter was “referred to Criminal Investigations Division [CID].” Id. Lastly, he stated he has custody of another grievance response, that would also show a referral to CID. Id.
Finally, Defendants assert Plaintiff did not adequately respond to their document request. Br. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2. Defendants claim, “to date, a complete response to the First Request for Production of Documents has not been provided by Plaintiff.” Id. at 2. Defendants attached the documents they received from Plaintiff- eleven health services forms-but complain that these documents came “with no context or explanations to the production.” Id.
The Court has reviewed Defendants' request and the documents provided by Plaintiff. Defendants made a broad request for documents, including all documents identified in his interrogatory responses. Attach. A to Defs.' Mot. to Compel 5, ECF No. 55-1. Defendants also requested any documents relating to communications about the lawsuit, statements obtained or prepared for litigation, documents intended for use at trial, relevant photographs, tangible items, drawings, surveys, videos, or other documents, and any communications between Plaintiff and Defendants. Id. at 5-6.
In their motion to dismiss, Defendants aver Plaintiff only produced eleven unexplained health services forms. Attach. B to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-11, ECF No. 612. The eleven attached documents are all versions of the same form, titled “Health Services Request Form,” spanning from August 2021 to February 2022. Id. In the first request, dated August 9, 2021-the date Plaintiff alleges the events in his complaint took place- Plaintiff states, “I was assault[ed] by several cert team member[s] now I'm having really bad neck and back pain.” Id. at 1. In the subsequent requests, he complains of neck, back, and arm pain, presumably from the same incident. Id. at 2-11.
Aside from these forms, Defendants state they received no other response to their request for production of documents. Br. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2. The Court assumes these health services forms are the “sick calls” Plaintiff mentioned he had possession of in his response to Interrogatory 3. Attach. A to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2. As he indicated in his response, these requests do describe the injuries Plaintiff alleges occurred due to the incident described in his complaint. Therefore, the Court disagrees with Defendants' characterization that the documents attached are provided without explanation, given they follow from the documents described in Plaintiff's interrogatory response.
B. Analysis
The “district courts have unquestionable authority to control their own dockets.” Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., -- F.4th --, No. 22-10348, 2023 WL 4346016, at *3 (11th Cir. 2023) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) gives “district judges broad discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions for violation of discovery orders[.]” Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1993). That broad discretion, however, is not without limits. “Dismissal with prejudice is the most severe Rule 37 sanction and is not favored.” Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993). Moreover, dismissal for noncompliance with discovery orders is typically only warranted “when a plaintiff's recalcitrance is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Id. (citing Nat'l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (1976)).
Dismissal of a claim or plaintiff as a sanction for their failure to properly respond to interrogatories is often too harsh a sanction when there are other remedies available. See Wouters v. Martin Cnty., Fla., 9 F.3d 924, 934 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding “violation of the discovery orders” did not amount to “the sort of willfully contemptuous conduct warranting dismissal”). Dismissal is only appropriate when “lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Meyer v. Gwinnett Cnty Police Dep't, No. 21-12851, 2022 WL 2439590, at *9 (11th Cir. July 5, 2022) (citing Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005)). Further, a “[v]iolation of a discovery order caused by simple negligence, misunderstanding, or inability to comply will not justify a Rule 37 default judgment or dismissal.” Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1542 (citing In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 872 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir. 1989); and E.E.O.C. v. Troy State Univ., 693 F.2d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1993)).
Here, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's case because he did not-in their view-adequately respond to their production requests and interrogatories. Br. in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 2. While Plaintiff's responses may be lackluster, it cannot be said that Plaintiff failed to respond. As detailed above, Plaintiff provided an answer to each interrogatory, and stated his confinement in segregation inhibits his ability to provide contact information for potential witnesses and relevant parties. Notably, many of the individuals named in his answers are Defendants themselves, including Carrington Williams, Malcolm Williams, Joseph Williams, Eric Finch, Tyee Brown, and Marcus Rogers. Attach. A to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss 1-2. Surely, Defendants' counsel does not need Plaintiff to provide contact information for the parties he represents. As for document production, the Court agrees the eleven health services request forms provided-the “sick calls”-do not suffice, particularly because Plaintiff states in his answer to Interrogatory 3 he also has possession of his grievance receipts and a copy of a grievance response. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff should provide a more thorough response to Defendants' request for production, but this insufficient response does not warrant the harsh sanction of dismissal of Plaintiff's action.
The Court recommends denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. As discussed, the severe sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with a discovery order is warranted only as a “last resort,” and it is not time for the last resort. See Navarro v. Cohan, 856 F.2d 141, 142 (11th Cir. 1988). It is more prudent to give Plaintiff another chance to enhance his responses to Defendants' discovery requests. The Court also notes Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and his “pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. U.S., 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, he is still “subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [and] subject to sanctions like any other litigant.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). Thus, Plaintiff is given one last chance to comply with the Court's previous discovery order. Future noncompliance will likely result in dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. Moreover, Defendants should thoroughly respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Once Plaintiff and Defendants fully engage in discovery with one another, this case can be resolved on its merits instead of a petty discovery issue. If necessary, the Court will enter a discovery order to facilitate this process.
CONCLUSION
The intention of this Order and Recommendation is to clear up any issues with the discovery process and to give Plaintiff one more chance to comply with the Court's previous order for him to respond to Defendants' discovery. Defendants are also reminded of their duty to comply with the discovery process. In summary, Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery from Defendants is Denied. Given that it is Recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss be DENIED, Defendants' motion for a stay of the proceedings is Denied. Following the District Judge's ruling on this recommendation, a discovery scheduling order will be entered, if necessary, detailing the timing and parameters of discovery.
SO ORDERED & RECOMMENDED.