Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bender v. Former Medical Supervisor

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

June 18, 2018

SHAWN BENDER, Plaintiff,
v.
FORMER MEDICAL SUPERVISOR/ DIRECTOR SUSAN BERRIER, UNIT MANAGER MELINIE NAGGY, SGT. MULROY, SUPERINTENDENT LANE, Defendants.

          ORDER

          MAUREEN P. KELLY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Presently 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 No. 50.

         In his 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).

         A. Documents related to February 11, 2018 assault

         As to 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.

         Because the documents relate to an incident that occurred after the filing of the Complaint, the Motion is denied as to this category of documents.

         B. Plaintiff's sick call slips

         As to 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.

         C. Report and recommendation of Defendant Naggy via DC-46

         Plaintiff 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.