United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
KENT G. SAVAGE, Plaintiff,
JEFFERY TROUTT, et al. Defendants.
CHARLES B. GOODWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the pro se Plaintiff's
Fourth Motion to Compel discovery responses (Doc. No. 84),
Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 86), Plaintiff's
Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 89), and Plaintiff's
motion requesting leave to file an amended response to
Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 93).
Plaintiff's Fourth Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts
that Defendant Troutt has repeatedly failed to provide
“adequate” responses to seven Requests for
Admission (6-9, 12, 19-20) and twenty-one Interrogatories
(1-11, 13-22). See generally Pl.'s Fourth Mot.
to Compel at 1, 2-12. Defendant Troutt has filed a response
objecting to Plaintiff's motion. Def.'s Obj. (Doc.
No. 87) at 1-5. After careful consideration, the Court finds
that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 84) should be GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part, as specified below.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
parties “may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (2016). Plaintiffs sole
surviving legal claim challenges Defendant Troutt's
alleged failure to properly treat Plaintiffs multiple
sclerosis (“MS”), neuropathic pain, and severe
constipation while serving as Plaintiffs prison physician at
the James Crabtree Correctional Center (“JCCC”).
See Order Adopting R. & R (Doc. No. 63) at 5-7
(concluding that these allegations stated an Eighth Amendment
deliberate-indifference claim against Defendant Troutt); R.
& R. (Doc. No. 59) at 5-8, 15-22.
Discovery Requests Relevant to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment
Claim or Defendant Troutt's Defense (s)
Court finds that the following discovery requests are
relevant to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim or to Defendant
Troutt's defense(s) and are proportional to the needs of
• Requests for Admission 6, 7, and 12; and
• Interrogatories 5, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 22.
Pl.'s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 2, 3-4, 8-9, 10-12. The
Court overrules Defendant's generalized objections that
certain of these requests are “duplicative, ”
“vague, ” or “speculative.”
See Pl.'s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 2, 4, 8,
11-12 (citing Requests for Admission 7, 9, 12, and
Interrogatories 11, 13, 20, 22); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
33(b)(4), 36(a)(6). Defendant's answers to all ten
discovery requests, to the extent he did not object to them,
are incomplete or non-responsive. See Fed. R. Civ.
Court also finds that Request for Admission 8, as narrowed by
Plaintiff in his motion to compel, is relevant to Plaintiffs
Eighth Amendment claim or to Defendant Troutt's
defense(s) and is proportional to the needs of this case.
Defendant's objection that this “request seeks
information not likely to lead to relevant information,
” Def.'s Obj. at 2, is overruled. See Witt v.
GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 307 F.R.D. 554, 561 (D. Colo.
2014). Accordingly, Defendant shall answer Request for
Admission 8, as modified:
• “[Defendant] Troutt did provide gabapentin
(Neurontin) to other JCCC inmates while refusing to provide
it to Plaintiff.”
Pl.'s Fourth Mot. to Compel at 3; see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Defendant is not required to provide any
identifying or other sensitive information about other
individuals in answering this Request for Admission.
Discovery Requests Unrelated to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment
Claim or ...