Duncan v. Administrator Crawford et al, No. 3:2016cv11100 - Document 161 (S.D.W. Va. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 120 MOTION to Compel Defendant Jarvis to Answer Interrogatories; denying Plaintiff's 121 MOTION to Extend Discovery and Plaintiff's 122 MOTION to Increase the Number of Interrogatories to 54, as they app ly to Defendants Crawford, King, Dameron, Jones, Martin, and Stephens; holding the motions in abeyance as to Defendants Jarvis, Payton, and Williamson; denying in part and holding in abeyance in part Plaintiff's 128 MOTION to Compel Further Di scovery and Further Answers; the defendants shall file with the Clerk a copy of their responses to the requests specified herein, along with any response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel, within fourteen (14) days of the date of thi s Order; to the extent any defendant failed to serve responses compliant with L. R. Civ. P. 36.1(a), a set of compliant responses shall be served on Plaintiff within fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 7/27/2018. (cc: Plaintiff; counsel of record)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Duncan v. Administrator Crawford et al Doc. 161 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA H U N TIN GTON D IVISION H EN RY TIMBERLAKE D U N CAN , Plain tiff, v. Cas e N o . 3 :16 -cv-1110 0 AD MIN ISTRATOR CRAW FORD ; AD MIN ISTRATOR KIN G; CORRECTION AL OFFICER D AMERON ; CORRECTION AL OFFICER JU STIN JON ES; CORRECTION AL OFFICER JAROD MARTIN ; SERGEAN T BRIAN STEPH EN S; CORRECTION AL OFFICER REBA PAYTON ; CORRECTION AL OFFICER STAN LEY JARVIS; an d CORRECTION AL OFFICE RON ALD W ILLIAMSON , D e fe n d an ts . ORD ER Pending are four discovery-related m otions filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 120 , 121, 122, 128). The m otions are considered in the context of the history and posture of this case. This case was filed on Novem ber 18, 20 16. Discovery com m enced on April 14, 20 17. Plaintiff am ended the com plaint several tim es, resulting in defendants that are at different stages in the litigation, as well as two am ended scheduling orders. The last am ended scheduling order, dated March 5, 20 18, was entered im m ediately after a discovery status conference. At the conference, the undersigned reviewed, in detail, with Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants the nature and extent of discovery that rem ained to be com pleted. The undersigned stressed the im portance of finishing discovery prom ptly, in part because of the age of the case, and in part because Defendants 1 Dockets.Justia.com Crawford, King, Dameron, J ones, Martin, and Stephens had a Motion for Sum m ary J udgm ent pending, which was filed in accordance with deadlines contained in an earlier scheduling order entered on August 10 , 20 17. (ECF No. 49). At the conference, Plaintiff indicated that a few of his prior discovery requests rem ained unanswered, but he confirm ed that he did not anticipate the need to serve any additional written discovery in order to respond to the pending Motion for Sum m ary J udgm ent. The Court and parties discussed Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery requests. Defense counsel was instructed to work with Plaintiff to provide the inform ation, and he was instructed to file a m otion to com pel if he did not get the m aterials that he felt he was entitled to receive. Based upon the parties’ representations, and considering that Plaintiff had already served the defendants with two sets of written discovery and a set of requests for adm ission, the Court set a deadline of April 6, 20 18 for the filing of m otions to com pel and a deadline of May 11, 20 18 for the close of discovery. Notwithstanding his statem ents at the status conference, on March 23, 20 18, Plaintiff served the defendants with a third set of interrogatories, a second set of requests for adm ission, and a set of requests for the production of docum ents. (ECF Nos. 10 7, 10 8, 10 9). Defendants filed responses to these requests on April 23, 20 18. (ECF No. 113). On May 10 , 20 18, one day before the expiration of discovery and well after the deadline for filing m otions to com pel, Plaintiff filed three discovery m otions. Ten days after the discovery deadline, and nearly one m onth after m otions to com pel were due, Plaintiff filed his fourth discovery m otion. With this history in m ind, the Court ORD ERS as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel Defendant J arvis to Answer Interrogatories is D EN IED . (ECF No. 120 ). Plaintiff originally m oved to com pel supplem ental answers to 2 Interrogatory Nos. 3, 15, 21, 22, 23, 37, 43, 56, 60 , 63, and 66. After receiving the m otion to com pel, J arvis voluntarily filed supplem ental responses to all interrogatories, except Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 21. Plaintiff agreed to accept J arvis’s supplem ental responses with the following exceptions. Plaintiff m oves to com pel a m ore com plete answer to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 22. In Interrogatory No. 15, Plaintiff asked J arvis to state the num ber of inm ate fights reported between J une 15, 20 15 and J une 15, 20 16 in the lockdown units at the Western Regional J ail, as docum ented in incident reports. J arvis originally responded that he did not have personal knowledge of the num ber and did not have control or custody of the doum entation. He subsequently added that the J ail and J ail Authority did not m aintain records of inm ate fights in such a m anner that the inform ation requested by Plaintiff was readily available. J arvis explained that to produce the inform ation requested by Plaintiff, J arvis would have to search through each and every inm ate file from that tim e period to look for responsive docum ents and then com pile the data requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks production of all incident reports involving the lockdown units that were prepared between J une 20 15 and J une 20 16, so that he can review the reports for evidence of inm ate fights. Plaintiff’s request is denied for several reasons. First, as J arvis has already stated, as a correctional officer, he does not have care, custody, or control of the J ail’s incident reports. Therefore, he is neither obligated, nor authorized, to produce them . Second, J arvis lacks personal knowledge sufficient to answer the question; no discovery rule requires J arvis to conduct research and com pile data for Plaintiff. Third, Plaintiff’s original request was an interrogatory, not a request for the production of docum ents. Therefore, his request for an order com pelling the production of docum ents is inapposite. 3 In Interrogatory No. 22, Plaintiff asked J arvis’s opinion about whether there were enough officers present at the J une 15, 20 16 altercation—before the arrival of Sergeant Stephens—for the officers “to have had the option, if they chose to do so, to attem pt to break up the fight using physical force by restraining both inm ates?” (ECF No. 120 at 2). J arvis originally objected on the grounds of speculation and conjecture, but provided an answer. He later supplem ented the response, but continued to object to the phraseology of the question. Plaintiff now m oves to com pel J arvis to answer a rephrased question. J arvis has already answered the interrogatory as posed; therefore, Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel a m ore com plete response to Interrogatory No. 22 is denied. The undersigned notes that Plaintiff further requests in this sam e m otion that the Court issue an order com pelling Defendants Crawford, King, Dam eron, J ones, Martin, and Stephens to produce certain item s Plaintiff requested at the March 5, 20 18 status conference, which include an incident report involving an inm ate-on-inm ate assault that occurred on B pod, involving two inm ates unrelated to the instant action; m aterials pertaining to an alleged assault on Duncan that occurred m ore than a year after the incident form ing the basis of the com plaint herein; tower logs from B, C, and F pods; incident reports discussing a power outage on J une 15, 20 16; and a “m issing” x-ray from his m edical file. Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel these item s is D EN IED . At the hearing on March 5, 20 18, Plaintiff was instructed to file a m otion to com pel if the said item s were not prom ptly provided (assum ing they existed and were in Defendants’ possession), and was given a deadline of Ap ril 6 , 2 0 18 to file that m otion. He failed to file the m otion until May 10 , 20 18. Accordingly, his m otion is untim ely. Furtherm ore, given Defendants’ Motion for Sum m ary J udgm ent, which has been pending since J anuary 20 18, allowing Plaintiff to continue discovery well after the deadline would be prejudicial to Defendants 4 Crawford, King, Dameron, J ones, Martin, and Stephens. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Discovery and Plaintiff’s Motion to increase the num ber of interrogatories to 54, as they apply to Defendants Crawford, King, Dam eron, J ones, Martin, and Stephens, are D EN IED . (ECF Nos. 121, 122). On March 5, 20 18, after having alm ost an entire year to develop his case, Plaintiff advised the Court that he had essentially com pleted discovery and did not anticipate serving additional discovery requests, even against the newly-joined defendants (J arvis, William son and Payton). While it is true that Plaintiff com plained of Defendants’ failure to provide certain m aterials—in particular, m edical records; records of a second attack in 20 17 or 20 18; and an incident report of an unrelated inm ate-on-inm ate assault in B pod—Plaintiff was told to file a m otion to com pel if he did not receive satisfactory responses prom ptly. He was given a deadline of April 6, 20 18 in which to file a m otion to com pel, with an explanation that the case needed to m ove toward resolution. The record shows that Defendants served Plaintiff with supplem ental inform ation on March 6, 20 18. Instead of filing a m otion to com pel, Plaintiff served a third set of interrogatories, a second set of requests for adm issions, and a set of requests for the production of docum ents on March 23, 20 18. Not surprisingly, Defendants objected to the excessive num ber of interrogatories when they responded on April 23, 20 18. Now Plaintiff seeks to extend discovery and increase the num ber of interrogatories. Plaintiff has been given am ple opportunity to discover his case; in fact, he was perm itted to conduct discovery even after Defendants Crawford, King, Dameron, J ones, Martin, and Stephens had filed a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent based on deadlines in an earlier scheduling order. To allow Plaintiff additional discovery against those defendants at this point would be prejudicial to said defendants. As to Defendants J arvis, Payton, and William son, the undersigned holds the 5 Motions in ABEYAN CE. Defendant J arvis appeared in this case on March 13, 20 18 and has a m otion to dism iss pending; Defendant William son appeared J uly 3, 20 18; and Defendant Payton appeared on J uly 26, 20 18. As these three defendants are new to the case, the issue of discovery will be addressed after any prelim inary dispositive m otions have been resolved. 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Com pel Further Discovery and Further Answers is D EN IED , in part, and held in ABEYAN CE, in part. (ECF No. 128). First, Plaintiff’s requests for the tower logs from B, C, and F pods and reports of an electrical outage are denied. Those docum ents are not relevant given that Defendants have adm itted that Durst and Newsom e were not supposed to be out of their cell at the tim e Plaintiff was released for hygiene. Whether they capped their cell door, or the door m alfunctioned due to an electrical outage, is not m aterial at this tim e. The rem ainder of Plaintiff’s m otion seeks an order from the Court com pelling Defendants to provide different or additional answers in response to various requests for adm ission. Requests for Adm ission are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. According to the Rule, a party m ay serve on another party a written request to adm it the truth of any relevant m atter. If the answers provided are insufficient, the requesting party “m ay m ove to determ ine the sufficiency of an answer or objection. Unless the court finds an objection justified, it m ust order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does not com ply with this rule, the court m ay order either that the m atter is adm itted or that an am ended answer be served. The court m ay defer its final decision until a pretrial conference or a specified tim e before trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). Nine individuals are nam ed as defendants in this civil action. Although Plaintiff has tended to treat the defendants as one party, they are not a single party. Consequently, 6 what Defendant Crawford m ay know and m ay be able to adm it could be vastly different from what Defendant Payton m ay know and be able to adm it. For that reason, requests for adm ission m ust be addressed to a specific party. Plaintiff contends that the defendants failed to com ply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 36.1(a). Local Rule 36.1(a) requires the party answering requests for adm ission to precede “each answer, statem ent or objection” with “the request for adm ission to which it responds.” Id. In order for the Court to determ ine whether the answers, statem ents, or objections m ade by each defendant to Plaintiff’s requests for adm ission are sufficient, the defendants shall file with the Clerk a copy of their responses to Request Nos. 7, 10 , 11, 12, 28, 29, 30 , 32, 35, 39, 43, 44, 48, 51, 62, 72, 73, 74, 75, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, and 98, along with any response in opposition to Plaintiff’s m otion to com pel, within fo u rte e n ( 14 ) d ays of the date of this Order. Defendants shall use the proper form at in responding to the requests for adm ission as set forth in the Local Rule. To the extent any defendant failed to serve responses com pliant with L. R. Civ. P. 36.1(a), a set of com pliant responses shall be served on Plaintiff within fo u rte e n ( 14 ) d ays . The Court will rule on the sufficiency of the responses when filed. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel of record. EN TERED : J uly 27, 20 18 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
