Stow v. McGrath
Stow v. McGrath
2019 WL 13380011 (D.N.H. 2019)
June 10, 2019
Johnstone, Andrea K., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court found that the defendants had adequately responded to the interrogatory posed by the plaintiff, and granted the motion to compel production of documents related to available lower bunk beds in the particular units referenced in the plaintiff's letter. The motion to strike was denied, and the motion to continue was granted, setting new deadlines for the trial and discovery.
Weston J. Stow
v.
Robert P. McGrath, et al
v.
Robert P. McGrath, et al
Civil No. 17-cv-088-LM
United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Filed June 10, 2019
Counsel
Weston J. Stow, pro seJohnstone, Andrea K., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 On May 30, 2019, the court held a hearing (“May 30 hearing”) on pending motions in this case:
• “Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery” (Doc. No. 160);
• Plaintiff's “Motion to Strike Pursuant to LR 7.2(b)” (Doc. No. 163);
• Plaintiff's “Motion to Compel Discovery” (Doc. No. 167); and
• “Defendants’ Motion to Continue All Trial-Related Dates” (Doc. No. 183).
Plaintiff Weston Stow appeared at the hearing pro se, and the defendants appeared through counsel, Attorney Seth Zoracki.
Discussion
I. Motions to Compel Discovery (Doc. Nos. 160, 167)
A. Interrogatory Response (Doc. No. 160)
Stow has moved to compel defendants Robert McGrath, Leo Lirette, and Edward Hardy to respond to the following interrogatory, initially propounded to them on March 13, 2018[1]:
Instead of being transferred to NCF, could I have been properly or safely kept in another pod in North Unit?
a. Or another pod in South Unit?
b. Or another pod in H-Build[ing]?
c. If not then why not?
Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc. (Doc. No. 160), at 1. Defendants filed an objection to the motion (Doc. No. 161), plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. No. 165), and defendants filed a surreply (Doc. No. 185). As set forth in the parties’ filings and during the May 30 hearing, the court finds as follows.
Defendants McGrath, Hardy, and Lirette responded to the interrogatories on June 8, 2018, generally objecting to the interrogatory at issue here on the basis that the interrogatory posed a hypothetical question, and that the interrogatory called for information which was not relevant to the claims in this case. In addition, the defendants each provided a response to the interrogatory. McGrath responded to the interrogatory as follows:
Based on the circumstances, which included Stow was having difficulty adjusting to cell mates and that Stow was having concerns about the air quality in the unit due to issues with the ventilation system, I made the proper management decision that Stow was a good candidate to be transferred to NCF.
Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. E, Robert McGrath's Resps. & Objs. to Pl.’s Interrogs. (Doc. No. 161-5), at 7-8. Hardy responded to the interrogatory as follows:
Prior to receiving the call from Classifications (referenced above), I am not aware of there being any plan or idea of moving [Stow] at all. When classifications called, [Stow's] name just came up.
Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. C, Edward Hardy's Resps. & Objs. to Pl.’s Interrogs. (Doc. No. 161-3), at 8. Lirette responded to the interrogator as follows:
When Classifications staff needed names for possible transfer to NCF, which happened every week, we gave them whatever number of names that they asked for (e.g., 2, 3, 5, etc.). In these instances, Classifications staff is not asking for names to fill other units, but rather names for transfer to NCF.
Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. D, Leo Lirette's Resps. & Objs. to Pl.’s Interrogs. (Doc. No. 161-4), at 7.
*2 On June 18 and July 2, 2018, Stow wrote to Zoracki, stating he didn't feel the defendants had adequately answered the interrogatory, and taking issue with many other discovery responses of the defendants. On September 6, 2018, Attorney Zoracki sent Stow a detailed letter which addressed each of the discovery issues raised by Stow. With the exception of the interrogatory that is the subject of this motion to compel, all of the discovery issues Stow had raised in his letters were eventually resolved between the parties without court involvement.
Concerning the interrogatory at issue here, Attorney Zoracki responded to Stow's objections as follows:
You take issue with Defendant Hardy, Lirette, and McGrath's respective responses to the [interrogatory]. This interrogatory presented a hypothetical question that called for the defendants to speculate as to what might have happened in the future, and has no bearing on any claim in this case.... The defendants properly objected to this interrogatory on the grounds that it posed a hypothetical question that has no relevance to any element of your claim.
In any event, each defendant reasonably answered your interrogatory (while reserving all objections with respect to relevance, materiality, and admissibility) based on the factual premise that a move within the State Prison for Men in Concord was not at issue at the relevant time. Rather, the issue was that a member of DOC Classifications staff had called the unit and asked for names of inmates who would be candidates for a transfer to NCF. The defendants responded to your interrogatory accordingly.
Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. B, Sept. 6, 2018 Letter (Doc. No. 161-2), at 2-3.
On September 17, 2018, Stow sent Zoracki a letter objecting to Zoracki's response. See Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. F, Sept. 17, 2018 Letter (Doc. No. 161-6). In an October 18, 2018 letter to Stow, Zoracki stated that the defendants wished to resolve the matter cooperatively, and requested clarification of the interrogatory from Stow as follows:
Please clarify what you mean by whether you could have been “properly or safely kept” in another pod in North Unit, South Unit, or Hancock Building. Do you mean to ask whether there was an open cell in one of these other units at the time of your transfer? Or are you seeking some other piece of information? Once I receive sufficient clarifying information from you on this interrogatory we will work on providing supplemental responses.
Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. G, Oct. 18, 2018 Letter (Doc. No. 161-7), at 2.
In an October 24, 2018 letter, Stow responded to Zoracki as follows:
I would not overthink “properly or safely kept.” ... We both know the significance of the question. I do understand your reluctance to answer (or rather your clients). God willing, sooner or later they will answer it. I will be filing a motion to compel. However, I will not request a hearing in an effort to save valuable court time, your office's time and overall expenses.”
Defs.’ Obj. to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. H, Oct. 24, 2018 Letter (Doc. No. 161-8), at 1. The instant motion to compel (Doc. No. 160) followed.
At the May 30 hearing, Stow was able to verbally clarify his interrogatory, indicating that in his interrogatory he was seeking information as to whether, during the period between February 10, 2016 and March 30, 2016, any of the defendants ever considered whether Stow could have been properly or safely housed in another pod in South Unit, another pod in North Unit (except North Unit pod 1D), or another pod in H-Building (except H-Building C pod). Further, to the extent the defendants answered part or all of that question in the negative, Stow sought a response to the question of why such a transfer was not considered. Attorney Zoracki agreed to ask defendants McGrath, Hardy, and Lirette those specific questions, and further agreed to supplement his interrogatory response by June 28, 2019.
*3 Because the defendants have agreed to provide the plaintiff with a supplemental response to the interrogatory which is the subject of the instant motion to compel, as clarified at the May 30 hearing, the motion to compel is denied as moot. The denial is without prejudice to Stow's ability to file a further motion to compel after June 28, 2019, should the defendants fail to produce further responses as agreed by that date.
B. Documents – Available Bottom Bunks (Doc. No. 167)
Stow filed a motion to compel (Doc. No. 167) the production of documents he has requested in discovery, which would show what bottom bunks were available and/or empty between February 12, 2016 and March 30, 2016, in South Unit, H-Building (other than H-Building C pod), and North Unit (other than in North Unit Pod 1D). See Pl.’s Mot. to Compel Disc. (Doc. No. 167), at 1. Defendants filed an objection (Doc. No. 164) to the motion, and plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. No. 168). Based on the parties’ written filings, and as ascertained at the May 30 hearing, the court finds as follows.
Stow originally made the request for production of the documents which are the subject of the instant motion by letter dated November 19, 2018. The defendants advised Stow that they objected to that request on relevance grounds, and suggested that the court's ruling on the previously-filed motion to compel (Doc. No. 160) would help to determine whether the request for logs concerning the availability of bottom bunks was relevant. Defendants stated that they would further respond to the request after the court ruled on Document No. 160.
For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the court finds that the requested information concerning bottom bunk availability during the time period requested is relevant to matters which may be at issue in this case. Accordingly, the court grants the motion to compel production of documents related to available lower bunk beds in the particular units referenced in Stow's November 18, 2018 letter, to the extent such records are available, by June 28, 2019. If, prior to that date, the parties agree to a stipulation concerning the location and number of bottom bunks available during the relevant time period, the defendants need not provide plaintiff with the requested documentation.
II. Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 163)
Plaintiff moves to strike certain interrogatory responses the defendants have provided, and exhibits attached to the defendants’ November 14, 2018 objection (Doc. No. 161) to Stow's October 31, 2018 motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 160). Stow argues that the interrogatory responses he asks the court to strike are evasive, irrelevant, and don't answer the questions “simply and directly.” Stow further argues that the exhibits he asks the court to strike exceed what is permissible under LR 37.1, and indicate that certain of Stow's filings in a state Superior Court case Stow filed in 2018, were frivolous. The defendants filed an objection (Doc. No. 164) to the motion to strike, and plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. No. 166).
As stated on the record at the May 30 hearing, the court finds that the exhibits attached to the defendants’ objection (Doc. No. 161) to the plaintiff's motion to compel are entirely proper, as they are relevant to questions and issues raised in the plaintiff's motion. The court also specifically finds that the defendants have acted in good faith in responding to the plaintiff's discovery requests that were the subject of the underlying motion to compel, and in attempting to resolve the underlying discovery disputes without court involvement. The court further finds that the defendants’ answers to the interrogatory at issue here were not evasive, nonresponsive, or otherwise improper. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike is denied.
III. Motion to Continue (Doc. No. 183)
*4 For reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the court grants the motion to continue and sets new deadlines as follows, which replace the deadlines previously set in this case, to the extent they differ from those set forth below:
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, and stated on the record at the May 30, 2019 motions hearing, the court now directs as follows:
1. The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 160) concerning interrogatory responses is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to file a motion to compel, after June 28, 2019, should the defendants fail to provide Stow with supplemental discovery responses by that date.
2. The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery (Doc. No. 167) of documents related to bottom bunk availability at certain New Hampshire State Prison housing units between February 12, 2016 and March 30, 2016 is GRANTED. The defendants must provide the requested documents to the plaintiff by June 28, 2019, unless, prior to that date, the parties agree to a stipulation concerning the location and number of bottom bunks available during the relevant time period.
3. Plaintiff's motion to strike (Doc. No. 163) interrogatory responses and attachments to Document No. 161 is DENIED.
4. Defendants’ motion to continue trial-related dates (Doc. No. 183) is GRANTED to the extent the court has set a new trial date, new date to complete discovery, and new deadline for the parties to file summary judgment motions, as set forth in this Order.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
As propounded to defendant McGrath, the interrogatory was identified as #18. As propounded to Lirette and Hardy, the interrogatory was identified as #15.