United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KING, MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
matter is before the Court on the pro-se Plaintiff's
motion to compel responses to interrogatories and production
of documents, to which Defendants have responded in
opposition. Dockets 13 and 16. The Court referred this case
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for ruling on all
discovery motions (Docket 8), and the motion to compel is
ripe for determination.
reasons stated below, the motion to compel will be DENIED.
facts and procedural history
a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against
Murray Police Officer David Bailey and the Calloway County
Court construes the pro-se complaint as
alleging that, on or about August 15, 2015,
Defendant Bailey, without probable cause, conducted a stop,
arrested Plaintiff, and transported him to the Calloway
County Detention Center in violation of Plaintiff's
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches
parties dispute whether Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of
the following: Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 1: Defendant
Bailey's Social Security Number and date of birth.
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 10: Whether Bailey has ever
had a mental evaluation and, if so, details of the outcome.
Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 2: Produce
Bailey's mental evaluation records. (Docket 13-1).
Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed.R.Civ.P.) 26(b)(1) allows
“discovery regarding any non- privileged matter that is
relevant to any party's claim or defenses, ” or for
good cause, “discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.”
Social Security Number and birthdate are not relevant to any
claim or defense in this case, and they are not relevant to
the subject matter of this case, i.e., Plaintiff's stop,
arrest, and transport to the Calloway County Detention
even if Bailey's Social Security Number and birthdate
would somehow help Plaintiff establish his claims, the
requested discovery is oppressive in light of the sensitive
nature of this private identifying information. See Surles v.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir.2007)
(“Although a plaintiff should not be denied access to
information necessary to establish her claim, neither may a
plaintiff be permitted to go fishing and a trial court
retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is
too broad and oppressive”); Jackson v. Papa John's
USA, Inc., 2009 WL 1011105 (Social Security numbers are
“of a highly personal and confidential nature [and
harm] can flow from disclosures”); Tech v. United
States, 284 F.R.D. 192 (M.D.Penn.2012) (collecting
authorities for the proposition that “[f]ederal courts
have been reluctant to require production of social security
numbers given the sensitive nature of this private
No. 10 and Request for Production No. 2
mental-health records, if any, are privileged,  not relevant to
any claim or defense in this case, and not relevant to the
subject matter of this case, i.e., Plaintiffs stop, arrest,
and transport to the Calloway County Detention Center. In
evaluating a Fourth-Amendment unconstitutional detention and
arrest claim, the touchstone of the analysis is whether there
was probable cause for the detention and arrest. This, in
turn, depends on the surrounding objective facts ...