United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge.
filed the instant pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging that Defendant D. Pennaman, a police officer,
used excessive force against him in the course of his arrest.
This matter is before the Court on a motion to compel
discovery filed by Defendant, through counsel (DN 43).
Defendant maintains that Plaintiff filed responses to his
discovery requests but that the answers are unsigned and that
“many of Plaintiff's responses are incomplete
and/or unresponsive to the Interrogatory and/or Request
made.” Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion,
and the time for doing so has passed. The Court concludes
that it can rule on the instant motion without the benefit of
a response by Plaintiff.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize extremely broad
discovery. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389,
402 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Leggett &
Platt, Inc., 542 F.2d 655 (6th Cir. 1976). Therefore,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 is to be liberally
construed in favor of allowing discovery. Dunn v.
Midwestern Indem., 88 F.R.D. 191 (S.D. Ohio 1980). Rule
26 provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
“For good cause, the court may order discovery of any
matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if
the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, “a party may move for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(1). A motion to compel is authorized where a party
fails to provide proper responses to interrogatories under
Rule 33 or requests for production of documents under Rule
34. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv).
motion seeks to compel Plaintiff to respond to eight
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please state the name, current address,
current telephone number(s) and place(s) of employment of any
person(s) who have any knowledge regarding any facts or
opinions given in response to Interrogatory Nos. 2 through 3
above, and identify all documents which evidence said facts
ANSWER: There was appx 15 witnesses that live at 601
Washington that verified these illegal abusive activities.
I have been falsely imprisoned from that brutal excessive
behavior since 10-8-2015 am waiting to be released on my
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
argues that if Plaintiff knows persons who may be witnesses
to the alleged excessive-force incident, he must provide
their names and contact information.
review, the Court agrees that Plaintiff must provide the
names of any and all persons whom he claims are witnesses to
the subject incident. Therefore, Defendant's motion will
be granted as to Interrogatory No. 4.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please give a detailed account of your
movements and activities in the twenty-four (24) hours prior
to your arrest on October 8, 2015.
ANSWER: I am an elderly disabled individual and I spend the
24 hrs of any day praying, getting medical attention for my
back legs and just relaxing.
argues that the answer “is not responsive to the
Interrogatory asked which is relevant to Plaintiff's
claims and requires a complete response from
Plaintiff.” Upon review, the Court finds that the
request seeks information that is reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that
Plaintiff's answer is insufficient. The Court will grant
the motion to compel with respect to this interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please state the name, current address,
current telephone number(s) and place(s) of employment of
each and every physician, physiatrist, psychologist, or other
mental health professional who has examined or treated you
during the last fifteen (15) years and provide a description
of the condition which led to the examination or treatment.
ANSWER: I am now always have been of sound mind, I have
never had any mental problems. God has really blessed me all
of my life and I really and truly thank God.
argues that because Plaintiff “is claiming a
significant injury to his right eye, allegedly now including
total loss of vision in his right eye, and extensive pain and
suffering, Plaintiff's ...