United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MAUREEN P. KELLY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Shawn Bender's Motion for
an order compelling Defendants Berrier, Naggy and Mulroy to
produce requested documents. ECF No. 47. Also before the
Court is Defendants' Response to the instant Motion. ECF
Motion, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have not produced
documents relating to four categories of documents: (1) an
assault by another prisoner on February 11, 2018; (2)
Plaintiff's sick call slips from 2010 to present; (3) a
report and recommendation made by Defendant Naggy via DC-46;
and (4) Grievance No. 622983.
As this Court has recently explained:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of
discovery as "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case." …
Rule 37 provides the mechanism to compel discovery from a
person or party who refuses to provide discovery. The party
moving to compel discovery under Rule 37 bears the initial
burden of proving the relevance of the material requested.
See Morrison v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195,
196 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citations omitted). If the movant meets
this initial burden, then the burden shifts to the person
resisting discovery to establish that discovery of the
material requested is inappropriate. Momah v. Albert
Einstein Med. Ctr., 164 F.R.D. 412, 417 (E.D. Pa. 1996)
(citation omitted). The person resisting discovery must
explain with specificity why discovery is inappropriate; the
boilerplate litany that the discovery sought is overly broad,
burdensome, oppressive, vague, or irrelevant is insufficient.
See Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-92
(3d Cir. 1982).
PEG Bandwidth PA, LLC v. Salsgiver, Inc., Civ. A.
No. 16-178, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108516, at *3-4 (W.D. Pa.
July 13, 2017).
Documents related to February 11, 2018 assault
the first category of documents, concerning an assault by
another prisoner on February 11, 2018, Plaintiff asserts that
he seeks these documents as evidence in support of his claim
for certain Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiff from
inmate-on-inmate violence. ECF No. 47 at 3. Defendants assert
that they object to this request because “the events of
February 11, 2018 postdate Plaintiff's Complaint, and to
the extent he wishes to pursue a claim against someone or
allegedly sustaining injuries at the hands of another inmate,
Defendants respectfully submit that Plaintiff cannot do so
through the instant litigation.” ECF No. 50 at 3.
the documents relate to an incident that occurred after the
filing of the Complaint, the Motion is denied as to this
category of documents.
Plaintiff's sick call slips
the second category of documents sought, “the entirety
of sick calls (complaints by Plaintiff) to medical, from:
2010 to year 2018, to date, ” ECF No. 47 at 3,
Defendants represent that they have provided Plaintiff with
his medical records through April of 2018. ECF No. 50 at 3.
Defendants do not specify whether the provided medical
records contain the documents Plaintiff requested,
specifically, “his complaints not the
responses by the medical staff and/or Defendant
Berrier.” ECF No. 47 at 4 (emphasis in original). To
the extent the medical records do not contain Plaintiff's
sick call slips/complaints, Defendant are ordered to produce
them within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Report and recommendation of Defendant Naggy via
also seeks an order to compel production of the report and
recommendation prepared by Defendant Naggy supplied in
preparation for a “DC-46 vote.” ECF No. 47 at 3,
5. Although neither party describes DC-46, it is a Department
of Corrections form for annual review of Restricted Release
List (“RRL”) designation, referred to as a
“vote sheet.” Johnson v. Wetzel, Civ. A.
No. 16-863, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103074, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
Aug. 5, 2016). On this vote sheet, prison employees set forth
an opinion as to whether a prisoner should remain on the RRL.