Opinion
Case No.: 11-80911-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN
11-14-2014
CHARLOTTE TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF, RIC L. BRADSHAW, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PALM BEACH COUNTY'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [DE 110]
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on "Defendant, Palm Beach County's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law" [DE 110]. Plaintiff filed "Charlotte Taylor's Response to 'Defendant Palm Beach County's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law' and Request for Hearing" [DE 111]. This matter is now ripe for review.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves alleged violations of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, arising from security screening procedures at the Palm Beach County Courthouse. The Court initially notes that this lawsuit was filed by the pro se Plaintiff on August 11, 2011, and has thus been pending for more than three years. The discovery cutoff date, as set by the Court, was September 14, 2014. Substantive motions are due by January 15, 2015, and trial is set for August 10, 2015 [DE 70].
The instant discovery dispute involves a set of simple and proper interrogatories propounded by Defendant Palm Beach County to Plaintiff Charlotte Taylor. This discovery dispute has unnecessarily dragged on for over four months due to Plaintiff's refusal to produce full and complete answers to interrogatories.
The interrogatories at issue were propounded to Plaintiff on July 10, 2014, which was approximately sixty-five days prior to the September 15, 2014 discovery cutoff date set by this Court. The interrogatories sought basic information from Plaintiff; in fact, some of the interrogatory paragraphs were taken directly from the standard form interrogatories listed in Appendix B to the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, and additional interrogatories requested facts specific to the allegations Plaintiff made in her Complaint. Instead of responding to the interrogatories propounded by Defendant in a timely and proper manner, Plaintiff has embarked upon a course of conduct apparently designed to stymie Defendant's discovery rights.
First, on August 8, 2014, just a few days before the date her interrogatory responses were due, Plaintiff filed her motion for a sixty day extension of time to respond to the interrogatories. The Plaintiff's requested response date was well past the Court-imposed discovery cutoff date of September 15, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the undersigned entered an Order which granted Plaintiff a twenty day extension of time to respond to the interrogatories [DE 96]. Therefore, pursuant to that Order, Plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories were due on or before September 2, 2014.
Second, on August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed her motion for reconsideration [DE 97] of the Court's August 14, 2014 Order [DE 96]. In her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff again asked for a sixty day extension of time to respond to Defendant Palm Beach County's interrogatories. While Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was pending, Defendant Palm Beach County filed its motion to compel discovery responses [DE 98], due to the fact that Plaintiff still had not responded to the interrogatories propounded to her on July 6, 2014. On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed her Response to the Defendant's motion to compel discovery which attached her purported responses to the Defendant's interrogatories [DE 99]. However, many of the Plaintiff's responses to the Defendant's interrogatories were non-responsive, incomplete, and evasive. On September 12, 2014, the undersigned entered an Order denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and granting the Defendant's motion to compel discovery [DE 100]. In that Order, Plaintiff was given an additional extension of time, until on or before September 22, 2014, to fully and completely respond to the Defendant's interrogatories. In that Order, the Court noted that the September 22, 2014 due date for Plaintiff to fully and completely answer the interrogatories was beyond the September 15, 2014 discovery cutoff date, but the undersigned provided that extra time to Plaintiff because she is proceeding pro se and would receive the Order by mail. In that Order, the Court also stated: "Plaintiff is hereby advised and put on notice that her failure to comply with this Court's orders to produce discovery may result in the following sanctions being imposed upon her pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court: directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence, striking pleadings in whole or in part; staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii)" [DE 100, pp. 2-3].
Third, rather than simply comply with her discovery obligations and answer the interrogatories, Plaintiff filed her motion for disqualification of the undersigned on September 15, 2014 [DE 101]. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of the disqualification request [DE 102] and an affidavit [DE 103]. The motion was largely based upon Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the discovery orders entered by the undersigned. Defendant Palm Beach County filed its response on September 18, 2014 [DE 105], which response was adopted by the codefendants on September 24, 2014 [DE 106]. Plaintiff filed her Reply on October 2, 2014 [DE 107]. The undersigned entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for disqualification on October 7, 2014 [DE 108].
Finally, on October 22, 2014, Defendant Palm Beach County filed its renewed motion to compel discovery responses [DE 110]. Plaintiff filed her response on November 10, 2014 [DE 111]. The pending motion and the Plaintiff's response are discussed in the next section of this Order.
II. THE DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant Palm Beach County's renewed motion to compel discovery [DE 110] lays out the tortured history of this discovery dispute, which will not be repeated here. In paragraphs 12 through 24 of the Defendant's renewed motion to compel, the Defendant specifically addresses each alleged deficiency in the Plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories [DE 110, ¶¶ 12-24]. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's responses to Interrogatories 1-5 and 8-16 "are largely unresponsive and assert privileges and objections that have both been waived and are either non-existent or inapposite to the actual question being asked" [DE 110, p. 7, para. 24].
Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories are boilerplate and fail to comply with Local Rule 26.1 G 3(a), requiring specificity as to why something is overbroad or the nature of the privilege being claimed [DE 110, p. 8]. Defendant's memorandum of law further addresses the deficiencies in Plaintiff's responses to the interrogatories [DE 110, pp 7-10].
Defendant requests that the Court grant its motion to compel, order the Plaintiff to fully respond to the Interrogatories within ten days, and extend the discovery cutoff period to allow for the completion of the discovery in light of Plaintiff's untimely response.
III. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant's renewed motion to compel discovery first challenges the jurisdiction of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to rule on this discovery dispute. Plaintiff seems to argue that the undersigned exceeded his authority as a United States Magistrate Judge "by failing to make his order(s) in compliance with Federal Magistrate's Act and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 72 with regards to findings as to non-dispositive pretrial matters" [DE 111, p. 1-2]. Plaintiff then states that "Subparagraph A of 636(b)(1) provides for a district court to review magistrate judge's determination of a non-dispositive issue" [DE 111, p.2].
Plaintiff's second argument appears to be that before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge can exercise his authority over this discovery dispute, there must be a fully executed consent form entered into by the parties [De 111, p. 3]. Plaintiff argues that because the undersigned did not issue a Report and Recommendation on this discovery dispute, Plaintiff's due process rights were violated and the undersigned's jurisdiction was exceeded [DE 111, p. 3]. Plaintiff argues that "the order(s) in the case at bar are void due to the lack of jurisdiction and are required to be set aside" [DE 111, p. 4].
Plaintiff's third argument appears to be a section where she discusses her view of the standard of review of Magistrate Judge orders by District Judges [DE 111, pp. 4-5].
Plaintiff's fourth argument appears to be that the undersigned failed to apply or misapplied relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure, and that a "contrary to law" standard of review should be applied in evaluating this purported failure [DE 111, p. 6]. The Plaintiff then launches into a discussion regarding whether she plead a "garden variety emotional distress and ADA claim" [DE 111, pp 6-7]. Plaintiff then cites to cases for the proposition that "garden variety" emotional distress claims do not establish a waiver of the medical records privilege" [DE 111, p. 7]. Plaintiff then discusses whether Rule 35 mental exams should be ordered for garden variety emotional distress cases [DE 111, pp. 7-8]. According to Plaintiff, since she has not put her mental and medical condition in controversy, the undersigned's order "would be 'contrary to law'" [DE 111, p. 8].
Plaintiff's fifth argument appears to be that she "has provide [sic] this court and the defendant(s) with the information she has with regards to the questions," and that she does not have information "with the exception of the foregoing medical information which was addressed in the above sections of this document" [DE 111, p. 8].
Plaintiff concludes by stating that she "is required to allow the magistrate judge to rectify his own errors and therefore request a hearing be held on 'Defendant Palm Beach County's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and Incorporate Memorandum of Law' and Charlotte Taylor's response to this court's prior order(s)" [DE 111. P. 9].
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Rather than addressing the actual interrogatories propounded to her over four months ago, and her reasons for not fully and completely responding to those interrogatories, Plaintiff instead chooses to primarily address other issues in her Response [DE 111], all of which are meritless.
Her first two arguments appear to assert that the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge was without jurisdiction to enter the discovery orders in this case, which orders have required her to fully and completely answer the interrogatories propounded to her, and further, that there must be a fully executed consent by the parties in order for the undersigned to enter the discovery orders he has entered in this case. Both of these arguments are meritless. On September 10, 2013, the Honorable United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra entered an Order which, inter alia, referred all discovery motions to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 [DE 70, para. 7]. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, Rules 1 through 4 of the Magistrate Rules for the Southern District of Florida, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the undersigned had the authority to hear and determine the discovery motions. No consent from the parties was necessary.
Plaintiff's third argument appears to address her view of the standard of review of Magistrate Judge orders by District Judges. Since no party has sought review before the District Judge of any of the discovery orders entered in this case, Plaintiff's discussion of the standard of review is simply irrelevant.
Plaintiff's fourth argument deals with her view that the undersigned failed to apply or misapplied relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure [DE 111, pp. 6-8]. In this regard, Plaintiff argues that Rule 35 mental exams should not be ordered in garden variety emotional distress cases. This argument is quite puzzling since the Defendant never sought a Rule 35 mental exam of the Plaintiff in this case, and the undersigned never ordered one. Plaintiff also makes the argument that a "garden variety emotional distress and ADA claim," which she allegedly has asserted, does not establish a waiver of the medical records privilege. This argument also misses the mark. The interrogatories in this case seek basic information and information related to Plaintiff's complaint. Just like any other party in any civil case, Plaintiff is required to answer interrogatories. She cannot escape that obligation by her dilatory conduct. Moreover, if Plaintiff had a privilege, she was required to raise it timely and properly. Plaintiff has never properly asserted a valid privilege, and instead refers to a generic "medical records privilege." Plaintiff has never specifically identified any information or medical records which are allegedly privileged and which are required to be produced pursuant to the interrogatories. Nor has she prepared and submitted a privilege log as to any allegedly privileged documents requested, as required by the local rules. Plaintiff's arguments fail. Moreover, Plaintiff has injected into this proceeding, by the filing of her Third Amended Complaint, the very issues upon which Defendant seeks discovery.
Plaintiff's fifth argument, that she has provided the information she has to the Court and to the Defendant "with regard to the questions," with the exception of "the foregoing medical information" [DE 111, p.8], is simply false. A review of the interrogatories at issue, and her untimely, evasive, and improper responses, belie her argument. In order to analyze Plaintiff's argument that she has produced all the information in her possession in regards to the questions asked in the interrogatories, the Court must examine each interrogatory request.
Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's interrogatories are attached to a Response previously filed by Plaintiff at docket entry 99.
Interrogatory 1 is a standard interrogatory which asks for the name and address of the person answering the Interrogatories. Plaintiff claims this interrogatory is overbroad. Plaintiff refuses to provide her current address. This is a frivolous objection and an incomplete response.
Interrogatory 2 is a standard interrogatory which asks for the name, address, telephone number, place of employment, and job title of any person with knowledge of any fact alleged in the pleadings. Plaintiff responds that a response to this request is privileged, not relevant, and overbroad. This is another frivolous objection by Plaintiff, and an incomplete response.
Interrogatory 3 is another standard interrogatory which asks for the nature and substance of the knowledge of the persons identified in the response to interrogatory 2. Plaintiff makes the same frivolous objections to this interrogatory as she did to interrogatory 2.
Interrogatories 4 and 5 are again standard interrogatories which request that Plaintiff list testifying expert witnesses and the substance of their opinions. Plaintiff asserts that this information is privileged and not relevant. Plaintiff also answers "unknown" to the portion of the interrogatory inquiring about her ability to gain entry into the Palm Beach County Courthouse. This is another frivolous objection and an incomplete response.
Interrogatory 8 asks the Plaintiff to identify each fact, circumstance and/or document upon which she bases her contention that the Defendant Palm Beach County has policies, procedures, and customs which require all persons in a wheelchair to stand to get into the Palm Beach County Courthouse. Plaintiff improperly claims this interrogatory is overbroad. Plaintiff inexplicably objects "as to any medical request," even though the interrogatory makes no medical request. Plaintiff references only a transcript of a hearing before Judge Crow and "other matters' which she fails to explain. Her objections to this interrogatory are frivolous and her response is evasive and incomplete.
Interrogatory 9 requests facts, circumstances, and/or documents related to Plaintiff's claim that Defendant Palm Beach County has implicitly or explicitly adopted and implemented careless and reckless policies, customs, or practices regarding entry to the Courthouse by persons in wheelchairs. The same frivolous objections and evasive and incomplete responses made to interrogatory 8 are also made to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory 10 asks for every date and time Plaintiff sought access to the Courthouse and was denied access. It also requests an explanation of each interaction, including the requirements placed on Plaintiff that she was allegedly unable to meet, the reason she could not meet the requirement, witnesses to the event, and any accommodations requested by Plaintiff including documentation she supplied in support of her requested accommodation. In response, Plaintiff provides no specific dates or times, no names of witnesses, no description of the requirements placed upon her, no description of requested accommodations and no list of documents provided during the interaction between her and security personnel at the Courthouse. Plaintiff instead repeats the same frivolous objections made to interrogatory 8 and 9. The only information she provides is that she regularly sought access to the Palm Beach County Courthouse but had to appear by phone for her various cases. Plaintiffs' response to this interrogatory is frivolous, evasive, and incomplete.
Interrogatory 11 asks that Plaintiff identify each and every action she took to obtain accommodations from Palm Beach County pertaining to security measures at the Courthouse. Plaintiff responds "unknown," even though she is obviously the one who would have taken action to seek the accommodations. She also lodges the same frivolous objections regarding an alleged privilege as to medical records and that the request is overbroad. Her response to this interrogatory is incomplete, evasive, and frivolous.
Interrogatory 12 requests Plaintiff to identify other persons who she claims are similarly situated to her but have been treated differently in the courthouse screening process. This interrogatory is directly related to Plaintiff's claim of a violation of equal protection of the laws, as asserted in her Third Amended Complaint at paragraphs 30-32. Incredibly, she claims medical privilege when no medical information is even sought. She also frivolously asserts that this interrogatory is overbroad.
Interrogatory 13 is the first interrogatory that requests medical information. However, this interrogatory is limited to medical conditions and/or illnesses that prevent Plaintiff from standing for short periods of time in order to complete security screening procedures. The information requested is relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Plaintiff has never properly and timely asserted any claim of privilege to the information sought by this interrogatory. She does not specifically explain the nature of the privilege she is seeking to invoke as to this relevant medical information. Further, Plaintiff is the one who has placed this issue before the Court by the filing of her Third Amended Complaint. She has never prepared a privilege log as to any documents which she asserts are privileged. In an ADA suit, medical records are discoverable. See Morris v. Sequa Corp., 275 F.R.D. 562, 567-69 (N.D. Ala. 2011). As to any asserted privilege, Plaintiff has waived such asserted privilege by not timely and properly asserting it, by not preparing a privilege log as to any privileged documents, by her boilerplate cut and paste objections to virtually every interrogatory, and by the fact that Plaintiff has put her medical condition and/or illnesses at issue in this lawsuit.
Interrogatory 14 asks Plaintiff to identify each and every case she contends was negatively affected by her alleged inability to gain access to the Palm Beach County Courthouse, including case style, case number, and the date, title, and docket number of each order, judgment, decree, or award she contends was entered against her as a result of her alleged inability to enter the courthouse. Plaintiff does list several "tax case numbers" and two other cases, but she does not respond to the balance of the interrogatory. Plaintiff also objects as privileged and not relevant as to any medical request, even though no medial request is made in interrogatory 14.
Interrogatory 15 relates to interrogatory 13 and requests a list of providers that Plaintiff has treated with for the past ten years, including the provider's address, telephone number, and Plaintiff's first date of treatment. Plaintiff raises the same frivolous objections and claims of privilege as asserted in her responses to the prior interrogatories. Plaintiff provided no information in response to this Interrogatory, except to reference a transcript from Judge Crow's hearing and unspecified "other matters." The Court finds that the information sought is relevant under Rule 26. The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and claim of privilege for the same reasons as discussed previously in this Order.
Interrogatory 16 requests a list of providers with whom Plaintiff has treated for anxiety, emotional pain, distress, or any other medical, behavioral, and/or emotional conditions which Plaintiff relates to the alleged events. Plaintiff again refuses to answer and asserts overbreadth and medical privilege objections. In light of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint [DE 62], where she claims that the Defendant has caused her emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, distress and anxiety [DE 62, ¶ 329], this interrogatory is proper. It seeks relevant information pursuant to Rule 26. Plaintiff never timely and properly raised a specific claim of privilege to the information sought by this interrogatory. She never prepared a privilege log as to any asserted privileged documents. She also has injected the issue on which discovery is sought by the filing of her Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has waived any privilege which she now asserts applies to the requested information. The information must be produced by Plaintiff.
V. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING
Plaintiff requests that a hearing be held on the Defendant's Motion and on "Charlotte Taylor's response to this Court's prior order(s)" [DE 111. P. 9]. The Court denies Plaintiff's request for a hearing as it is unnecessary and will only serve to further delay this case.
VI. CONCLUSION
In sum, Defendant's interrogatories seek relevant information. Plaintiff's responses to Interrogatories 1 through 5, and 8 through 15, are evasive and non-responsive. Plaintiff's responses are largely comprised of improper cut and paste, boilerplate objections which are not permitted in this Court. Gusman v. Irmadan, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 399, 400 (S.D. Fla. 2008). The requested information is all relevant under the broad dictates of Rule 26. Any belated claim of privilege asserted by Plaintiff fails because, inter alia, she has not timely, properly, and sufficiently specified the nature of the privilege she is claiming, has not prepared a privilege log as to any documents at issue, and has injected the issues on which discovery is sought into this litigation by the filing of her Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff cannot come into this Court, file a Complaint, seek damages, and then fail to comply with her basic discovery obligations. Plaintiff has been dilatory, evasive, and non-responsive in regards to the interrogatories propounded upon her over four months ago. This dilatory behavior is precluding Defendant in its trial preparation and motion preparation. The Court has repeatedly ordered the Plaintiff to fully and completely respond to the Interrogatories.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant, Palm Beach County's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [DE 110] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby ordered to produce full and complete responses to Interrogatories 1 through 5 and 8 through 15 on or before December 1, 2014. Plaintiff is hereby advised and put on notice that her failure to comply with this Court's orders to produce discovery, including this Order, may result in the following sanctions being imposed upon her pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Court: directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; striking pleadings in whole or in part; staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
No extension of the discovery cutoff date is necessary, as sought by Defendant, since the Defendant propounded this discovery well before the discovery cutoff date and has been diligently seeking full and complete responses. --------
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant shall, within three days of December 1, 2014, file a motion with the Court, advising whether the interrogatories addressed in this Order have been fully and completely answered by Plaintiff. Hopefully, Plaintiff will comply with this Order. However, if Plaintiff has failed to fully and completely answer the interrogatories, as directed in this Order, the Defendant shall state in said motion what relief it seeks. Plaintiff may file a response, if any, to Defendant's motion within seven days of Defendant filing its motion with the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 14th day of November, 2014, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County in the Southern District of Florida.
/s/_________
WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN
United States Magistrate Judge