Milledge v. McClellan et al, No. 3:2020cv00269 - Document 191 (M.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 186 Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery; directing defense counsel to comply within fourteen days as stated in the Order; granting in part 189 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant Reddish's motion for partial summary judgment; directing Plaintiff to respond to 182 the motion for summary judgment by December 20, 2022; granting in part and denying in part 190 Plaintiff's motion for extension o f time to file discovery-related motions as stated in the Order; directing the Clerk to strike 185 Plaintiff's notice; overruling 188 Plaintiff's objection to the magistrate judge's order. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 10/24/2022. (KLC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Milledge v. McClellan et al Doc. 191 Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION COREY L. MILLEDGE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:20-cv-269-BJD-PDB JEFFREY R. MCCLELLAN et al., Defendants. _________________________________ ORDER Plaintiff, Corey Milledge, an inmate without a lawyer, is proceeding on an amended complaint (Doc. 17) for the violation of civil rights related to incidents that occurred at Florida State Prison between March 2018 and October 2019. See generally Doc. 17. On September 1, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge entered an Omnibus Order addressing multiple discovery disputes and Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the discovery-relatedmotions deadline. See Order (Doc. 183). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s notice regarding discovery (Doc. 185); Plaintiff’s motion to compel review of discovery (Doc. 186), which Defendants oppose (Doc. 187); Plaintiff’s Rule 72 objection to the Omnibus Order (Doc. 188); Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant Reddish’s Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 1277 amended motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 189); and Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file discovery-related motions (Doc. 190). Notice & Motion to Compel In his notice, Plaintiff contends Defendants disclosed records for his review but withheld “reports”1 relating to the June 13, 2018 incident and video evidence of the June 6, 2018 incident. See Doc. 185 at 1-2. Plaintiff’s notice is not a proper motion, and it appears to address, at least in part, the subject of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. As such, the Court takes no action on Plaintiff’s notice (Doc. 185) and directs the Clerk to strike it. In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to arrange for him to review surveillance videos and his deposition transcript. See Doc. 186 at 1-2.2 Defendants contend they were unable previously to request the relevant surveillance videos because Plaintiff had not yet signed a medical release, and “the videos containe[] medical information.” Doc. 187 at 1. Plaintiff signed the medical release on the day Defendants filed their repsonse, and Defendants represent they will make the videos available for Plaintiff’s review 1 It appears Plaintiff is referencing reports prepared in connection with the Inspector General’s investigation of the subject incident. See Doc. 185 at 1. 2 Surveillance videos were previously the subject of a motion to compel and addressed in the Omnibus Order. See Order (Doc. 183) at 2. 2 Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 1278 once they receive them. Id. at 2. Accordingly, as to the surveillance videos, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 186) is denied as moot. In their response, Defendants do not address Plaintiff’s request to review his deposition transcript. Plaintiff says he wants to review his own deposition transcript so he can “make corrections,” if necessary. See Doc. 186-2. However, Plaintiff does not say whether he requested, at his deposition, to review the transcript, nor is it clear whether a transcript is available.3 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1) (providing that a deponent must be allowed to review his deposition transcript within “30 days [of] being notified by the officer that the transcript . . . is available,” if the deponent requested the opportunity to review the transcript “before the deposition [was] completed”). Plaintiff’s request to compel Defendants to allow him to review his deposition transcript (Doc. 186) is granted in part only to the extent the Court directs defense counsel to notify Plaintiff within fourteen days of the date of this Order whether his deposition transcript is available and, if so, whether, when, and how he can review it in accordance with Rule 30(e)(1). Otherwise, the request is denied. Defendant Reddish did not file a copy of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript in support of his amended motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 182). 3 3 Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 1279 Objection to Omnibus Order The Omnibus Order addressed multiple discovery-related motions, most of which Plaintiff filed. See Order (Doc. 183). Plaintiff objects only to the magistrate judge’s ruling on his motion to compel Defendants to disclose documents Plaintiff considered relevant to his custom/policy claim against Defendant Reddish. See generally Doc. 188.4 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Reddish had a custom or policy of allowing officers to abuse inmates. See generally Doc. 17. Rule 72 provides that a party may “serve and file objections to [a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter] within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the order].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). But a party objecting to a magistrate judge’s ruling under Rule 72 must demonstrate that the ruling is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id. The “clear error” standard is highly deferential and difficult to satisfy. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2002)). To grant relief, the district court must be “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (citing Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 4 The disputed discovery requests are quoted in the Omnibus Order. See order (Doc. 183) at 4 nn. 1, 2. See also Doc. 163-1 (Plaintiff’s discovery requests). 4 Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 1280 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)). A ruling will be “contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies” relevant, binding law. Id. Plaintiff’s objection is timely: the Clerk mailed a copy of the Omnibus Order to him on September 2, 2022, and he mailed the objection on September 15, 2022. See Doc. 188 at 1 (prison stamp). However, Plaintiff does not demonstrate the magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter (discovery) was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In fact, it appears Plaintiff misconstrues the ruling. He suggests the magistrate judge found his discovery requests were not “relevant.” See Doc. 188 at 2. The magistrate judge made no such ruling. See Order (Doc. 183) at 5. The magistrate judge concluded Plaintiff “requested evidence that [was] not proportional to the needs of the case.” Id. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Reddish and independent review of the at-issue discovery requests, see Doc. 163-1, the Court agrees that Plaintiff sought materials not proportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. Motions for Extension of Time First, Plaintiff asks for an additional 90 days to respond to Defendant Reddish’s motion for partial summary judgment because he is still waiting to review discovery materials. See Doc. 189 at 1. Finding the request for more 5 Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 1281 time reasonable and receiving no objection from Defendants, the Court grants in part Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 189). Plaintiff must respond to Defendant Reddish’s amended motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 182) by December 20, 2022. Next, Plaintiff asks for the discovery-related-motions deadline to be extended by 60 days because he still has not received from Defendants some witness reports and surveillance videos. See Doc. 190 at 1-2. But Plaintiff acknowledges defense counsel has communicated with him about these discovery matters and assured him she is attempting to obtain the witness reports (if they exist) and will contact the warden to arrange for him to review surveillance videos. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct defense counsel to file a notice with the Court regarding the outstanding discovery. Id. Plaintiff certifies he spoke with counsel about the motion, and counsel does not oppose it. Id. at 3. Given Plaintiff’s representation that defense counsel is working to produce the outstanding discovery and does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 60 days to file discovery-related motions (Doc. 189) is granted. However, the Court extends this deadline only as to the outstanding discovery mentioned in the motion (Doc. 189). Plaintiff may not raise objections to discovery already disclosed to him as of the date of his 6 Case 3:20-cv-00269-BJD-PDB Document 191 Filed 10/24/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 1282 motion (October 7, 2022). Plaintiff’s request that defense counsel be directed to file a notice is denied. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 24th day of October 2022. Jax-6 c: Corey Milledge Counsel of Record 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.
