United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
TALWANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Compel
Discovery [#53]. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants
failed to respond fully to nine of Plaintiff's Request
for Production of Documents. Decl. of Jeremiah Doe in Supp.
of Mot. to Compel (“Doe Decl.”) ¶ 8 [#55].
Following a hearing, and for reasons stated below, the
Motion to Compel [#53] is DENIED in part and GRANTED
in part as to Defendant Alan Sanderson, II.
No. 2 and No. 3
No. 2 seeks:
All documents, reports, memoranda, notices, letters and
[correspondences], training materials, policies, procedures,
rules, and regulations concerning the correct way and
procedures in handcuffing and/or rest[r]aining persons.
Supp. of Mot. to Compel Disc., Ex. 1 Pl.'s First Req. for
the Produc. of Docs. (“Pl.'s RFP”) [#54-1].
Request No. 3 seeks:
All documents, reports, memoranda, notices, letter and
correspondences, training materials, policies, procedures,
rules, and regulations concerning the treatment of
inmates/offenders who are located in Massachusetts Department
of Corrections facilities. This will be for both the verbal
and physical treatment of inmates/offenders, which should
include any code of conduct, and policies regarding the
publishing of inmate convictions for all inmates to see or
RFP 3 [#54-1].
asserts that the requested documents are highly relevant to
his claim that Defendant acted outside of the scope of
training when he twisted Plaintiff's arm while
handcuffing him. Id. Defendant contends that these
requests are overbroad, not limited in time and scope, and
seek subject matter that is both irrelevant to the subject
matter of the action and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Def.'s Resp. to
Pl.'s RFP 2; Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s RFP 3 [#54-1].
Defendant also asserts that RFP 3 appears to have been
propounded “solely for the purpose of annoyance . . .
.” Id. Without waiving these objections,
Defendant produced a copy of the public use of force CMR as
responsive to RFP 2, but asserted that production of further
responsive documents jeopardizes internal
security. With respect to RFP 3, Defendant produced
training materials, and otherwise referred Plaintiff to
policies and regulations available at the inmate law library.
Defendant notes that he has withheld one document, containing
rules and regulations for Department of Corrections
(“DOC”) employees, because production would
present security concerns.
request for “all documents, reports . . . and
regulations” (emphasis added) without a time limitation
is overbroad. Documents relating to the period when Plaintiff
was incarcerated at Souza-Baranowski, from July 2013 to
October 24, 2013 (the “relevant period”), Compl.
¶¶ 14, 103 [#1], in contrast, appear to be
“relevant to [his] claim . . . and proportional to the
needs of the case . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). With
respect to RFP 3, the request is also overbroad to the extent
it seeks documents unrelated to physical abuse or publication
of confidential inmate records. However, documents relating
to physical abuse or the publication of confidential inmate
records in force during relevant period of his
Complaint [#1] are relevant to Plaintiff's
surviving 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and state law claims of
verbal and physical harassment. The court COMPELS production
of responsive documents for the relevant period as follows.
order to address the internal security concerns raised by the
Defendant, the court adopts the following protocol for in
camera review of relevant documents. Plaintiff is
directed to propound one or more interrogatories or requests
for admission stating the specific policy or information he
seeks to prove through the requested documents. Defendant
shall respond to the interrogatories or requests for
admission. If Defendant disputes Plaintiff's assertions
regarding the specific policy or information contained in the
documents, Defendant shall provide a copy of the documents to
Plaintiff, with information not directly related to
Plaintiff's inquiry redacted. If Defendant contends that
providing the redacted document would still raise internal
security concerns, or Plaintiff notifies Defendant's
counsel that Plaintiff seeks review of redacted portions of
the document, Defendant shall file a Request for In
Camera Review, attaching Plaintiff's Interrogatory
or Request for Admission and Defendant's Response, and
shall submit the responsive documents to the clerk for filing
under seal pursuant to this Order.
All training officers' names and current contact
information for all of the defendants. This would include
training staff, supervisors, and guest training staff who
would teach any aspect of the training both at the training
academy and continual training and the aspects in which each
of these training staff members taught and when they taught
Pl.'s RFP 4 [#54-1]. Plaintiff asserts that he needs the
names of the training officers in order to argue that
Defendant's treatment of him fell ...