The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge McClure
Victor Brown ("Plaintiff"), an inmate presently confined at the State Correctional Institution, Frackville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Frackville"), filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Order dated May 11, 2004, Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint (Record document no. 40) was accepted.
The Remaining Defendants are the following SCI-Frackville officials: Deputy Superintendent for Centralized Services John Kerestes; Personnel Director Jerry Pritchett; Unit Manager Gary Rosato; ex-Captain Ray Boyle, Jesse James; Counselor Carl Dudek; Sergeant Dean Harner; Correctional Officers John Kowalchick, Alvin Miller, Shawn Roth, Trevor Hardy, and Brian Cress.
By Memorandum and Order dated February 7, 2007, the remaining parties were directed to confer in good faith regarding Plaintiff's unresolved discovery requests and file status reports with the Court. The Memorandum and Order stated that many of Brown's pending discovery requests were overly broad; sought information which did not appear to be relevant to the remaining issues, and overly burdensome with little or no apparent benefit. Specifically, the Court noted that many of the Plaintiff's discovery requests had questionable relevance because they sought information regarding the individual Defendants': income; military service; alcohol abuse; personal finances; job descriptions; criminal records; personal opinions; specialized training; and involvement in other grievances/law suits.
Presently pending is Plaintiff's third motion to compel discovery. See Record document no. 161. Brown acknowledges that the parties have conferred telephonically and resolved most of their prior discovery disputes. However, his motion requests the production of supplemental responses from Defendants Harner and Roth and information previously sought in a request for production of documents. The Plaintiff's fifty-seven (57) page supporting brief additionally seeks to compel production of information relating to the Remaining Defendants' individual job descriptions, criminal/ arrest records; institutional grievances filed against them by other prisoners; and lawsuits (for retaliation) filed against them by inmates. He also seeks information as to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' (DOC) procedures relating to correctional staff who are found to be intoxicated while on state property, use obscene language, and who have retaliated against prisoners.
The Remaining Defendants initially assert that Brown's motion should be denied because he failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) and M.D. Pa. Local Rule 26.3. See Record document no. 163, p. 3. Specifically they contend that Plaintiff did not contact opposing counsel "regarding his alleged non-receipt of two sets of supplemental interrogatories and discovery documents, nor his exceptions to defendants' objections within the supplements." Id. at p. 4.
They add that since: Defendant Harner submitted a supplemental response, the Plaintiff was notified that Defendant Roth would not be submitting a supplemental response, and arrangements were made for Plaintiff to view the documents requested in his request for production of documents, those claims are now moot.
Based upon defense counsel's representations that the issues regarding Defendants Roth and Harner's supplemental responses and the request for production of documents were resolved following the filing of the present motion, those arguments will be dismissed on the basis of mootness. In light of that determination, further discussion regarding the Rule 37(a) argument is not necessary.
With respect to the Plaintiff's remaining contentions, it is well-settled that Rule 26 establishes a liberal discovery policy. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Great West Life Assurance Co. v. Levithan, 152 F.R.D. 494, 497 (E.D. Pa. 1994). As a general rule, therefore, discovery is permitted of any items that are relevant or may lead to the discovery of relevant information. Hicks v. Big Bros./Big Sisters of Am., 168 F.R.D. 528, 529 (E.D. Pa. 1996); Transcontinental Fertilizer Co. v. Samsung Co., 108 F.R.D. 650, 652 (E.D. Pa. 1985).
Although "the scope of relevance in discovery is far broader than that allowed for evidentiary purposes, it is not without its limits." Stabilus v. Haynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson & Greaves, P.A., 144 F.R.D. 258, 265 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (citations omitted). The court 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. S.S. Fretz, Jr., Inc. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., No. 90-1731, 1991 WL 21655, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 1991); M. Berenson Co. v. Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Inc., 103 F.R.D. 635, 637 (D. Mass. 1984); see generally 8 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2007-2013 (2d ed. 1990).
However, the burden is on the objecting parties to demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request is improper. Hicks, 168 F.R.D. at 529; Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255, 258 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Miller v. Doctor's Gen. Hosp., 76 F.R.D. 136 (W.D. Okla. 1977). The party objecting to discovery must show that the requested materials do not fall "within the broad scope of relevance . . . or else are of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure . . . ." Burke v. New York City Police Dep't, 115 F.R.D. 220, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Furthermore, federal policy favors broad discovery in civil rights actions, which ...