Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-00996
06-26-2019
AUGUSTUS SIMMONS, Plaintiff v. R. GILMORE, ET AL., Defendants
OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL [ECF No. 52, ECF No. 55] PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONFERENCE [ECF No. 53]
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. 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
Simmons has also filed two additional motions: a motion to compel discovery response (ECF No. 52) and a motion for preliminary conference (ECF No. 53), both of which are DENIED. The motion to compel is denied as repetitive of the motion to compel filed at ECF No. 55. The motion for preliminary conference is construed as a motion requesting a settlement conference. Here, Simmons states that he "is interested in settling this matter and would like a [sic] opportunity to communicate such with the defendants in a preliminary conference." ECF No. 53, ¶ 1. The motion is denied at this time. However, the Plaintiff is directed to send a detailed settlement proposal stating what he believes would be necessary to resolve the remaining claims to Counsel for the Defendants. Upon receipt of the Plaintiff's proposal, Counsel for the Defendant is to notify the Court whether the Defendants will join in Plaintiff's request for a settlement conference.
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.
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))."(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.
"District courts provide magistrate judges with particularly broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes. See Farmers & Merchs. Nat'l Bank v. San Clemente Fin. Group Sec., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 572, 585 (D.N.J. 1997). When a magistrate judge's decision involves a discretionary [discovery] matter ..., "courts in this district have determined that the clearly erroneous standard implicitly becomes an abuse of discretion standard." Saldi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 224 F.R.D. 169, 174 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (citing Scott Paper Co. v. United States, 943 F. Supp. 501, 502 (E.D. Pa. 1996)). Under that standard, a magistrate judge's discovery ruling "is entitled to great deference and is reversible only for abuse of discretion." Kresefky v. Panasonic Commc'ns and Sys. Co., 169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J. 1996); see also Hasbrouck v. BankAmerica Hous. Servs., 190 F.R.D. 42, 44-45 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding that discovery rulings are reviewed under abuse of discretion standard rather than de novo standard); EEOC v. Mr. Gold, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 100, 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding that a magistrate judge's resolution of discovery disputes deserves substantial deference and should be reversed only if there is an abuse of discretion)." Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 2010 WL 3735702, *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2010).
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 STGMU;
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;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
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.
Strategic Threat Group Management Unit. See, e.g., Enoch v. Perry, 2019 WL 2393783, *4 (W.D. Pa. June 6, 2019).
A hearing on the Plaintiff's motion was held on June 25, 2019. The Court resolves these discovery disputes as follows:
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| Security file,investigations,admissions, andreasons for placementin the STGMU ofinmate DwayneWatts. | Relevance. Plaintiffseeks prohibitedinformation on otherinmates, seeksconfidentialinformation thatcould put the safetyand security of theprison in jeopardy | Watts has signed adeclaration to testifyas a witness andsupply supportingfacts for Plaintiff'scase, Watts recordswill show thedifference between anactive gang member(Watts) and aninactive gangmember (Simmons,since August, 2016);Plaintiff contends thatthe Defendantsopened the door toallow him to reviewany security filingsby claiming he is amember/leader of agang. | The Motion tocompel is DENIED.The informationconcerning otherinmates is prohibitedper DOC policy. See,e.g., Sloan v. Murray,2013 WL 5551162, at*4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 8,2013) (denyingmotion to compelgrievance responsesthat concerned otherinmates, citing DOCpolicy prohibitinginmates fromreceiving informationabout one another);Torres v. Harris,2019 WL 265804, *1(M.D. Pa. Jan. 18,2019). |
|---|---|---|---|
| Department Policies6.3.1 (FacilitySecurity) and 6.5.1(Security Level SHousing Unit Policy) | Plaintiff seeksconfidentialinformation thatcould put the safetyand security of theprison in jeopardy. | Without thisargument Plaintiffwill be unable tobuild an adequate andfair argumentpertaining to staffmisconduct. | The motion tocompel is DENIED.This information isnot discoverable. SeeRosa-Diaz v. Harry,2018 WL 6322967(M.D. Pa. Dec. 4,2018); Coit v.Garman, 2018 WL3818853, *2 (M.D.Pa. Aug. 10, 2018). |
| GrievanceInvestigation Reports- independentinvestigation reports,notes completed bystaff | The request forproduction is vague,the term"investigationreports" is undefined;Defendants providedPlaintiff with copiesof the grievancerecords | Defendants areplaying "wordgames." | The Motion toCompel production ofthis material isDENIED as MOOT.Counsel for theDefendants hasindicated he willcontact the prison inan attempt to secureany other information |
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| relating to theGrievance at issue.In the event there isadditionalinformation available,it will be forwardedto the Plaintiff. | |||
| Plaintiff's medical,dental, andpsychiatric/mentalhealth records. | The request forproduction is vague,overbroad, undulyburdensome, notproportional to theneeds of this case;relevancy, Plaintiffseeks confidentialinformation thatcould put the safetyand security of theprison in jeopardy;inmates are not privyto mental healthrecords for reasons ofsecurity and to ensurethat programmingand treatment are notcompromised. | The records arerelevant becausePlaintiff is pursuing aclaim against medicalstaff and isattempting to provepersonal damage as aresult of hisconfinement in theRHU. | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.Counsel for theDefendants statedthat the Plaintiff'smedical records havebeen provided to him.As to mental healthrecords specifically,the Court agrees thatthe security concernsrelated to theproduction of anymental health recordsare justified. SeeCarter v. Baumcratz,2019 WL 652322, *2(W.D. Pa. Feb. 15,2019) (citing Banks v.Beard, 2013 WL3773837, at *3 (M.D.Pa. July 17, 2013)("With respect to themental healthrecords, were theymade available toinmates or the public,DOC professionalswould tend to refrainfrom entering candidopinions andevaluations.Consequently,decision-makerswould not have thebenefit of honest |
|---|
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| observations fromprofessionals in thefield. Moreover, if aninmate knows howDOC staff willevaluate him and howparticular behaviorsare likely to beinterpreted, he iscapable ofmanipulating theresultingdetermination, whichcould lead toinaccurateassessments,improper institutionalplacements, andpossible prematurerelease from custody.Based on theforegoing, defendantswill not be compelledto produce anyportion of plaintiff'smental healthrecord."). | |||
| X17 Reports,summary, blockcards, daily reports,incident reports, yard,etc., from 2016 to2017 while Plaintiffwas at SCI -Greene | Plaintiff's requesteddocuments are notrelevant. Further, theDefendants haveprovided thesedocuments to thePlaintiff for 2017. | The requesteddocuments will revealthe contradictions,misconducts, andmanipulations bystaff to abuse thePlaintiff as well astheir attempts tocover up the denial ofhis haircuts. | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.The requestedmaterial from 2017was provided to thePlaintiff. Thematerial from 2016predates his claims inthis case and is notrelevant. |
|---|---|---|---|
| DC-141, B937660,DC-121, summary ofinvestigation andreport by correctionalsupervisor | Defendants maintainthat this request isvague. They do notunderstand what isbeing requested. Inan attempt to | Plaintiff contends thatthe DC-121 is thesummary ofinvestigations reportmade by staff andgives more detail to | The motion tocompel is DENIED.As noted above,Counsel for theDefendant willcontact the prison to |
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| respond, theyprovided the Plaintiffwith the requestedmisconduct report. | the investigation doneby the supervisingstaff to determinecredibility of themisconduct report. | determine if anyother information isavailable regardingthe grievance inquestion. | |
| Video of cell FB7 atSCI Greene on eachdate Plaintiff waskept in his cell | The request is vague,overbroad, undulyburdensome. It is notproportional to theneeds of the case andis irrelevant. | Plaintiff argues thatthis is not a vaguerequest: video willshow that the staffnever turned thelights off and P waskept in his cell withthe lights on twenty-four hours a day,seven days a week. | The Court agrees.The Motion toCompel is DENIED.The request does notspecify a date andtime of the recordingrequested. It is alsounduly burdensomefor the Defendants toproduced videorecordings of theentirety of Plaintiff'stime at SCI-Green. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Video of cell FB2 atSCI Greene on datePlaintiff was kept inhis cell | This request is vague,overbroad, undulyburdensome, and notproportional to theneeds of the case.Further, it isirrelevant. | Plaintiff argues thatthis is not a vaguerequest: video willshow that the staffnever turned thelights off andPlaintiff was kept inhis cell with the lightson twenty-for hours aday, seven days. aweek. | The Court agrees.The Motion toCompel is DENIED.The request does notspecify a date andtime of the recordingrequested. It is alsounduly burdensomefor the Defendants toproduced videorecordings of theentirety of Plaintiff'stime at SCI-Green. |
| All reports of abusemade against c/pCore, Gillespie,Hennessey, Albonde,Yourkin, Kennedy,while at SCI-Green | Defendants argue thatthis request is vague,overbroad, undulyburdensome, notproportional to theburden and expenseon Defendants insearching for andproducing thedocuments. Theycontend further thatmaterial would | Plaintiff argues thatthis provides himwith relevantevidence ofDefendants' prior badacts that couldcorrelate with theallegations of hisclaims. | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.Prior bad acts areinadmissible. SeeSummers v. Wetzel,2018 WL 6112066,*7 (E.D. Pa. April 30,2015). Further,because the requestedinformation wouldcontain informationabout other inmates, |
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| contain confidentialinformation aboutother inmates towhich the Plaintiff isnot entitled | it is confidential andnot discoverable.See, e.g., Allen v.Eckard, 2019 WL1099001, *3-4 (M.D.Pa. March 8, 2019). | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff's restrictedannual review sheetfor SCI-Greene from2016-2017 | Defendants' arguethat this request seeksconfidentialinformation, couldjeopardize safety andsecurity, seeks mentalhealth treatmentrecords, and isirrelevant. | Plaintiff argues thatthe requestedinformation willprovide relevantmental healthinformation that"shall be crediblefacts to supportPlaintiff's mentalhealth claims ofdeliberateindifference" | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.See, e.g., Allen v.Eckard, 2019 WL1099001, *4 (M.D.Pa. March 8, 2019). |
| Plaintiff asks forpopulation recordsand visitor logs from2012 to 2019 whilehe was in the RHU. | Defendants' arguethat this request isoverbroad, vague,and not proportionalto the needs of thecase. They alsocontend it isirrelevant. | Plaintiffacknowledges thatrequest is overbroad,but not burdensomebecause he has onlyhad 1 visitor in 8years. He claims toneed these records tocorrelate mentalhealth, psychologyabout his familywhile he was in theRHU | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.See, e.g., Rister v.Lamas, 2012 WL3758092, *4 (M.D.Pa. Aug. 28., 2012).The Court agrees thathis request for sevenyears of visitor andpopulation logs isunduly burdensome. |
| Plaintiff requests fulland complete securityrecords from 2009 to2018. | Defendants counterthat this request isoverbroad, vague, notproportional,relevance, and seeksconfidentialinformation thatcould affect safetyand security. | Plaintiff argues thatbecause theDefendants accusehim of gangaffiliation viareligious beliefs, thesecurity record mustbe examined tochallenge thataccusation. | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.Allowing Plaintiffaccess to suchinformation wouldobviously create asubstantial securityrisk. See Bracey v.Price, 2012 WL849865, *3 (W.D. Pa.March 13, 2012)(citing Paluch v. |
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| Dawson, 2007 WL4375937 (M.D. Pa.Dec. 12, 2007). | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Video evidence ofmisconduct chargeB937660 | The Defendantssubmit that no videoexists to comply withthis request. | Plaintiff argues thatthe Video shouldhave been preserved. | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.The Defendantscannot produce whatdoes not exist.Cooper v. Sherman,2018 WL 5841752 *5(M.D. Pa. Nov. 8,2018); Cotton v.Campbell, 2016 WL2742386, *2 (D. Del.May 10, 2016). |
| Plaintiff asks fordocuments relating toPSA Chriovitti'sduties, qualifications,and employmentposition/status. | Defendants contendthat this request isirrelevant, notproportional,confidentialinformation whichcould jeopardizesafety and security. | Plaintiff counters thatthe requesteddocuments arerelevant to the lack ofmental healthtreatment provided,and that theinformation needed toshow mandated dutyand obligations ofthis Defendant. | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.Per DOC policy,inmates are notentitled toconfidentialinformation ofDepartmentemployees. See, e.g.,Johnson v. Miskell,2017 WL 3701784,*3 (M.D. Pa. Aug.28, 2017). |
| PSA (psychologistsecretary assistant)duties, obligations,and job descriptions | Relevancy, notproportional,confidentialinformation whichcould jeopardizesafety and security | Relevant to the lackof mental healthtreatment provided,information needed toshow mandated dutyand obligations | The Motion toCompel is DENIED.Per DOC policy,inmates are notentitled toconfidentialinformation ofDepartmentemployees. See, e.g.,Johnson v. Miskell,2017 WL 3701784,*3 (M.D. Pa. Aug.28, 2017). |
| A clear version of c/oBrooks account of | Defendants object tothis request as | Plaintiff maintainsthat the misconduct | The Motion toCompel is DENIED. |
| Item requested byPlaintiff forproduction | Nature ofDefendants'objection | Plaintiff'sReply/Argument | Ruling |
| events that took placeon B937660 viaaffidavit | irrelevant, arguingthat the writtenmisconduct documentspeaks for itself. | report is vague, andonly relies onmisconduct chargesfor any real narrativeor text. He wants theCO to state in writingthe events that hewitnessed. | The Defendants haveprovided the Plaintiffwith the misconductreport. A Departmentemployee cannot becompelled to file anaffidavit. |
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.
/s/_________
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Entered this 26th day of June, 2019.