*1 Pending before the court are eight Motions to Compel Production, Inspection, and Copying of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories, filed by the plaintiff, who is seeking more complete responses to written discovery requests directed to defendants Yeager and John Does 1-7 (ECF Nos. 57-64.) and a proposed subpoena duces tecum sought by the plaintiff (ECF No. 79.) The undersigned will address each motion in turn.

A. The plaintiff's Motions to Compel.

The pending Motions to Compel concern the plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (hereinafter collectively referred to as “First Set of Discovery Requests”). According to the Certificate of Service, the plaintiff served these discovery requests on September 28, 2012 (ECF No. 29.) Discovery was subsequently stayed by United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley pending the resolution of the defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 33.)

On April 23, 2013, following the entry of Judge Copenhaver's Memorandum Opinion and Order, which dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims, except for his claim of Civil Trespass against defendants Yeager and John Does 1-7, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. That same day, the undersigned entered an Order and Notice setting new deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. (ECF No. 44.)

According to Certificates of Service docketed on April 29, 2013, defendants Yeager and John Does 1-7 served their responses to the plaintiff's First Set of Discovery Requests. (ECF Nos. 45-52.) On May 14, 2013, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendants' counsel, requesting additional responses to his First Set of Discovery Requests, in an attempt to satisfy the “meet and confer” requirement. (ECF No. 54.) The plaintiff's letter indicates that the defendants “have refused to provide responses and have not indicated that they will provide such information” concerning the enumerated discovery requests. (Id.) Then, having received nothing further from the defendants, on June 6, 2013, the plaintiff filed his Motions to Compel. (ECF Nos. 57-64.)[1]

The plaintiff has structured his discovery requests by stating a Request for Admission, followed by an Interrogatory and Request for Production of Documents related to the Request for Admission. The Interrogatories generally request that, for any response to a Request for Admission that was not an unqualified admission, the plaintiff requests that the defendants provide “a full statement of all the facts and reasons which form a basis for defendant's failure to make an unqualified admission.” The Request for Production of Documents then requests that, if the response to the Request for Admission is other than an unqualified admission, “please provide all documents which form a basis of, or relate to, defendant's failure to make an unqualified admission, and each and every document or other piece of evidence identified in [the defendant's] response to the interrogatory above, or relied upon by [the defendant] in formulating his response to said interrogatory.” The undersigned will address each response to the discovery requests challenged by the plaintiff in turn. However, the undersigned notes that the plaintiff's Motions to Compel simply set forth the text of the discovery requests and do not address the defendants' individual responses, or provide any specific reasons why the plaintiff believes the responses are insufficient. Nor does he provide any argument as to why he believes the specific information requested is relevant to the remaining Civil Trespass claim.

Motion to Compel concerning defendant Yeager's responses

1) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production # 5:

*2 The first discovery requests addressed by the plaintiff in his Motion to Compel further responses from defendant Yeager are Request for Admission # 5, Interrogatory # 5, and Request for Production of Documents # 5. Request for Admission # 5 asked Lt. Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager denied this Request for Admission. As noted above, Interrogatory # 5 then asked defendant Yeager to provide a full statement of all the facts and reasons which form the basis of his failure to make an unqualified admission. However, the Interrogatory further requested the following information:

Defendant Yeager objected to this interrogatory on the basis that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding the objection, defendant Yeager further stated that he observed utility bills in Danaya's name and mailed to the 825 Barrett Street, South Charleston, West Virginia address.

Concerning the Request for Production of Documents, which requested any and all documents which form the basis of, or relate to, defendant Yeager's failure to make an unqualified admission, and documents identified in Interrogatory #5, defendant Yeager stated that he denied the request for admission “because the statements contained therein are not true.”

The undersigned FINDS that defendant Yeager's response to Interrogatory #5 is sufficient. He responded to the portion of the interrogatory requesting information concerning the basis of his denial of the Request for Admission by stating that he saw utility bills in Danaya's name. That response satisfies the interrogatory as asked. The undersigned further FINDS that the remainder of Interrogatory #5 concerning any claims for benefits filed by defendant Yeager is not relevant to the remaining Civil Trespass claim and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The undersigned further FINDS, however, that defendant Yeager's response to Request for Production of Documents #5 is insufficient because defendant Yeager has not addressed whether there are any documents which form the basis of his response to Request for Admission #5.

2) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production #6:

In Request for Admission #6, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager admitted this request.

Interrogatory #6 asked defendant Yeager to provide a full statement of all the facts and reasons that form the basis of any failure to make an unqualified admission. Since defendant Yeager admitted this request, there is no need for any further statement. Likewise, to the extent that Request for Production of Documents #6 seeks documents that support defendant Yeager's denial of Request for Admission #6, defendant Yeager's response that there are no documents is proper and sufficient.

However, Interrogatory #6 further requests that defendant Yeager identify information concerning any expert witnesses the defendants intend to use, and to provide a summary of the subject matter and grounds for the expert's testimony. Defendant Yeager objected to this portion of the interrogatory stating that he reserves the right to supplement this request pursuant to the court's Scheduling Order.

No deadline has been set by the court for disclosure of expert witnesses. However, to the extent that the parties believe that any expert witness testimony is necessary in this matter, and to the extent that any party intends to attempt to qualify and call an expert witness at trial, it is hereby ORDERED that the information required to be disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be disclosed to the opposing party by November 15, 2013.

Otherwise, the undersigned FINDS that defendant Yeager's responses to Request for Admission #6, Interrogatory #6, and Request for Production #6 are sufficient.

3) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production #7:

In Request for Admission #7, the plaintiff asked defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager denied this request.

In response to Interrogatory #7 and Request for Admission #7, defendant Yeager stated that he denied Request for Admission #7 “because the statements contained therein are not true.” The undersigned FINDS that these responses are not sufficient. Defendant Yeager is hereby ORDERED to supplement his response to these requests with a more specific response concerning each statement contained in Request for Admission #7 that he maintains is not true. (For example, defendant Yeager has already admitted that he entered the property at 825 Barrett Drive on July 1, 2011; therefore, he cannot deny the portion of Request for Admission #7 concerning whether he was on duty that day.)

4) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production #8:

In Request for Admission #8, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

*4 Defendant Yeager denied this request. In response to Interrogatory #8 and Request for Production #8, he stated that he denied Request for Admission #8 because he does not know the statements contained therein to be true, and that there are no documents relied upon making his denial.

The undersigned FINDS that Request for Admission #8 seeks information that calls for a legal conclusion. Therefore, it is not an appropriate discovery request. Therefore, defendant Yeager is not required to provide a response to this request. Similarly, defendant Yeager is not required to provide responses to Interrogatory #8 or Request for Production #8, which are derived from the inappropriate Request for Admission #8.

5) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production #10:

In Request for Admission #10, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager admitted this request in part and denied it in part. He does not elaborate on which part is admitted and which part is denied.

In response to Interrogatory #10, in which the plaintiff requests a full statement of all facts and reasons which form the basis of defendant Yeager's failure to make an unqualified admission, defendant Yeager states “Defendant Yeager has denied part of the request because the [sic; he] does not know the statements contained therein to be true.” Defendant Yeager provides the same response to Request for Production #10.

The undersigned FINDS that these requests are relevant to the Civil Trespass claim or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, with the limitation that the relevant time period is between June 29, 2011 and July 1, 2011, and that the term “other things” is overly broad. The term “other things” shall be limited to any meetings, discussions, talks and communications between defendant Yeager and the other listed persons concerning the plaintiff in the time period between June 29, 2011 and the plaintiff's exit from the property on July 1, 2011.

The undersigned further FINDS that defendant Yeager's responses to all three of these discovery requests to be insufficient to the extent that defendant Yeager has not sufficiently identified the portion(s) of the Request for Admission that are admitted and the portion(s) of the Request for Admission that are denied. Consequently, the undersigned further FINDS that a more specific statement is necessary concerning the portions of the Request for Admission# 10 that are admitted and the portions that are denied, which, thus, affects the responses to Interrogatory #10 and possibly Request for Production #10.

It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Yeager shall supplement his response to Request for Admission #10, Interrogatory #10 and Request for Production #10 with a more specific statement concerning which portions of the Request for Admission are admitted and which portions are denied, and the production of any documents that form the basis of the denial of any portions of the Request for Admission.

6) Request for Admissions, Interrogatory and Request for Production #11:

*5 In Request for Admission #11, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager admitted this request in part and denied it in part. He also provided answers similar to those provided to Interrogatory #10 and Request for Admission #10. The difference between the two requests appears to concern the time frame, and the requests in #10 address communications with Gail Reid, and other family members, whereas the requests in #11 address any communications with former defendants Bailes and Lindell, and any John Doe Officers.

The undersigned FINDS that these requests are relevant to the Civil Trespass claim or are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, with the limitation that the relevant time period is between June 29, 2011 and July 1, 2011 and that the term “other things” is overly broad. The term “other things” shall be limited to any meetings, discussions, talks and communications between defendant Yeager and the other listed persons concerning the plaintiff in the time period between June 29, 2011 and the plaintiff's exit from the property on July 1, 2011.

The undersigned further FINDS that defendant Yeager's responses to all three of these discovery requests to be insufficient to the extent that defendant Yeager has not sufficiently identified the portion(s) of the Request for Admission that are admitted and the portion(s) of the Request for Admission that are denied. Consequently, the undersigned further FINDS that a more specific statement is necessary concerning the portions of the Request for Admission# 11 that are admitted and the portions that are denied, which, thus, affects the responses to Interrogatory #11 and possibly Request for Production #11.

It is hereby ORDERED that defendant Yeager shall supplement his response to Request for Admission #10, Interrogatory #11 and Request for Production #11 with a more specific statement concerning which portions of the Request for Admission are admitted and which portions are denied, and the production of any documents that form the basis of the denial any portions of the Request for Admission.

7) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production # 15:

In Request for Admission #15, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager denied this request.

In response to Interrogatory #15 and Request for Production #15, seeking a full statement concerning the basis for the denial and any documents that support the denial, defendant Yeager stated that he denied the request “because the statements contained therein are not true, as Defendant Yeager was not on duty June 29, 2011, therefore could not have spoken to Gail and/or Jaime.”

*6 The undersigned FINDS that these requests are not relevant to the Civil Trespass claim and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning that claim. Moreover, to the extent that these requests are deemed to be relevant, defendant Yeager has sufficiently answered these requests by stating that he was not there on June 29, 2011.

8) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production #16:

In Request for Admission #16, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager denied this request. In response to Interrogatory #16 and Request for Production #16, defendant Yeager stated that he denied the request “because the statements contained therein are not true as Defendant Yeager was not on duty June 29, 2011.”

The undersigned FINDS that these requests are not relevant to the Civil Trespass claim and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning that claim. Moreover, to the extent that these requests are deemed to be relevant, defendant Yeager has sufficiently answered these requests by stating that he was not there on June 29, 2011.

9) Request for Admission, Interrogatory and Request for Production #17:

In Request for Admission #17, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager denied this request. He also responded to Interrogatory#17 and Request for Production #17 by stating that he denied Request for Admission #17 “because the statements contained therein are not true.”

The undersigned FINDS that these requests are not relevant to the Civil Trespass claim and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning that claim. Furthermore, the Request for Admission calls for a legal conclusion. Accordingly, defendant Patterson is not required to provide any additional response to these requests.

10) Interrogatory #18:

In Interrogatory #18, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager objected to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding the objection, defendant Yeager further stated that he has been employed by the City of South Charleston Police Department for the last seventeen (17) years.

The undersigned FINDS that the request for information concerning defendant Yeager's wages or salary is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, the undersigned further FINDS that information concerning defendant Yeager's title and type of work performed, as well as the name of his supervisors may be relevant or may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Yeager shall supplement his response to Interrogatory #18 with information concerning his job tile, job duties or type of work performed, and the name(s) of his supervisors, over the last ten (10) years.

11) Interrogatory #19:

*7 In Interrogatory #19, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager objected to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding the objection, defendant Yeager further stated his full name and his birth date.

The undersigned FINDS that the requested information is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, defendant Yeager is not required to provide any further information in response to this Interrogatory.

12) Interrogatory #20:

In Interrogatory #20, the plaintiff asks defendant Yeager the following:

Defendant Yeager objected to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Notwithstanding the objection, defendant Yeager has provided the schools and the dates that he graduated from high school college, and the West Virginia Police Academy.

The undersigned FINDS that this request is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The undersigned FINDS that the information provided by defendant Yeager is sufficient, except that that defendant Yeager is ORDERED to supplement his response, where applicable, with information concerning his course of study and degrees received from the University of Charleston, and any certificates or other documents demonstrating the completion of training or a course of study at the West Virginia Police Academy.

13) Request for Production #18

In Request for Production #18, the plaintiff requests copies of defendant Yeager's personal federal and state tax returns for the past five (5) years. Defendant Yeager objected to this Request on the basis that it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The undersigned agrees. Defendant Yeager will not be required to produce his personal tax returns.

14) Request for Production #19

In Request for Production #19, the plaintiff requests the following:

*8 Defendant Yeager responded to this request by stating that he “has not prepared any reports.”

The undersigned FINDS that this response is insufficient. The undersigned further FINDS that this request is overly broad, and that portions of the request are not relevant to the remaining Civil Trespass claim and that the request, in its entirety, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The undersigned further FINDS that the request should be limited in scope to any and all documents concerning the incidents involving the entry by South Charleston Police Department officers to 825 Barrett Street in South Charleston, West Virginia, on June 29, 2011 and July 1, 2011 that are the subject of this action.

For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and to Compel Responses to Interrogatories as to Lt. Yeager (ECF No. 57.) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is hereby ORDERED that, on or before November 1, 2013, defendant Yeager shall supplement his responses to the plaintiff's First Set of Discovery Requests as set forth more fully, supra.

The plaintiff's Motions to Compel responses from John Does 1-7

On June 6, 2013, the plaintiff also filed Motions to Compel Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories from each of the seven John Doe defendants. (ECF Nos. 58-64.) From the undersigned's review, the First Set of Discovery Requests made by the plaintiff to each of these John Doe defendants appear to be identical. Upon review of the First Set of Discovery Requests, the John Does defendants' responses to the First Set of Discovery Requests, the plaintiff's Motions to Compel, and the defendants' responses thereto, the undersigned FINDS that, without the proper identification of the John Doe defendants, it is virtually impossible for the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's First Set of Discovery Requests. The undersigned further FINDS that there is no request contained in the First Set of Discovery Requests that specifically seeks to determine the identities of any of the John Doe defendants, who are purported to be South Charleston Police Officers who entered the property at 825 Barrett Street in South Charleston, West Virginia on July 1, 2011.

It is hereby ORDERED that, unless and until the plaintiff identifies John Does 1-7 and specifies each individual to whom his discovery requests are directed, the defendants are not required to answer or supplement the responses already given to the plaintiff's First Set of Discovery Requests to John Does 1-7. Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motions to Compel Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Responses to Interrogatories as to each of the seven John Doe defendants (ECF Nos. 58-64.) are DENIED.

The undersigned notes that, according to the docket sheet, the plaintiff has served two other sets of discovery requests upon each of the remaining defendants, including the still unidentified John Does 1-7. The undersigned is not aware of the subject matter of those requests, and there is no pending dispute related to those requests.

B. The plaintiff's request for a subpoena duces tecum

*9 On July 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (hereinafter “subpoena duces tecum”). (ECF No. 79.) It is the practice of this court to enter an Order directing the Clerk of the Court to issue subpoenas on behalf of pro se litigants, following a review for relevance. Because the plaintiff is not an officer of the court, and is proceeding pro se, the undersigned took under advisement the subpoena document submitted by the plaintiff, and will now address the relevancy of the documents requested.

The plaintiff's proposed subpoena is directed to Frank Mullens, the Mayor of the City of South Charleston. Because the City of South Charleston has been dismissed as a defendant in this matter, the undersigned FINDS that any documents requested from the City or its departments, are properly sought through a subpoena. However, the undersigned further FINDS that the scope of the documents requested by the plaintiff is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the relevant documents requested appear to be documents that would be in the possession of the South Charleston Police Department. Accordingly, the undersigned believes that the subpoena should be directed to the Chief of Police of the South Charleston Police Department.

Consequently, the undersigned has modified the scope of the document requests as follows:

1. All documents, including time records and dispatch records (but not pay records) which indicate or reflect the names and job titles of City of South Charleston Police Officers who were on duty beginning at 12:01 a.m. on June 29, 2011 up to and including 11:59 p.m. on July 1, 2011.

2. All documents, video or audio recordings, and electronically stored information, including cell/mobile phone test messages, and police camera footage, which indicate or reflect any citizens, including police officers, Gail Reid, Danaya Steiner, Joe Steiner, or Jaime Adkins, who visited, were at/in or brought to the South Charleston Police Department (“SCPD”), or were otherwise present in the Police Department building, Office of the Chief of Police, and Police Commander's Office beginning at 12:01 a.m. on June 29, 2011 up to and including 11:59 p.m. on July 1, 2011, concerning the incidents involving the entry by South Charleston Police Department officers to 825 Barrett Street in South Charleston, West Virginia, on June 29, 2011 and July 1, 2011 that are the subject of this action.

4. To the extent not already produced in response to Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, all documents, e-mails, video/audio, electronically stored information including cell/mobile phone text messages, social media posts and police camera footage which indicate, reflect, or suggest that SCPD received information from fellow police officers, Gail Reid, Danaya Steiner, Joe Steiner or Jaime Adkins, with respect to the SCPD forming a good faith belief that they had a right to enter Patterson's property on July 1, 2011, including but not limited to:

(A) any and all documents, emails, video/audio, and electronically stored information including cell/mobile phone text messages, social media posts and police camera footage of communications to and from SCPD which in any way relate to the practice, policy, substance and procedure of the SCPD decisional process concerning all claims against Patterson during the continuum of time beginning on or about 2:00 p.m. on June 29, 2011, or anytime thereafter when SCPD first interviewed or spoke to fellow police officers, Gail Reid, Danaya Steiner, Joe Steiner, Jaime Adkins, or anyone else concerning domestic battery charges against Patterson, and when the SCPD entered Patterson's property on July 1, 2011 and ejected Patterson.

*10 (D) any and all documents, emails video/audio, and electronically stored information including cell/mobile phone text messages, social media posts and police camera footage of communications received by the SCPD and garnered from fellow police officers, Gail Reid, Danaya Steiner, Joe Steiner, Jaime Adkins during the continuum of time beginning on or about 2:00 p.m. on June 29, 2011, or anytime thereafter, concerning domestic battery charges, whether or not the same were communicated to or from any officer, which in any way relates to information or advice provided to SCPD concerning prerogatives that SCPD had legal authority to enter Patterson's house on July 1, 2011, forcefully eject Patterson from his house on July 1, 2011; and turn over physical possession of Patterson's house to Danaya Steiner on July 1, 2011.

The undersigned further FINDS that the documents requested in paragraphs 3, 4(B) and (C), 5 and 6 of the plaintiff's proposed subpoena duces tecum exceed the scope of discovery that is relevant to the remaining Civil Trespass claim and that those requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue a subpoena duces tecum addressed to B.L. Rinehart, Chief of Police, South Charleston Police Department, 235 Fourth Avenue, South Charleston, WV 25303, requesting copies of the above-referenced documents, which shall be set forth on Attachment A to the subpoena. The subpoena shall be returnable by mail to the plaintiff at his address on the docket sheet by November 22, 2013.

THE PLAINTIFF IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICE OF THIS SUBPOENA WITHIN THE PARAMATERS OF RULE 45 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS PROCEEDING PRO SE AND HAS NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO PREPAY ANY COURT FEES AND COSTS DOES NOT REMOVE HIM FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AND COSTS OF PROPERLY SERVING SUBPOENAS UNDER RULE 45. DUE TO THE RETURN DATE OF NOVEMBER 22, 2013, THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2013.

Accordingly, upon issuance, the Clerk shall mail the subpoena duces tecum to the pro se plaintiff for service upon the Chief of Police.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to transmit it to counsel of record.