Summary
This federal district court order addresses the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding prior rulings on discovery motions, alongside defendants’ motion to correct a typographical error and the plaintiff’s miscellaneous requests concerning address changes and law library access. The court granted reconsideration solely to correct a clerical error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) but denied the remainder of the motion, upholding its previous decisions on discovery scope, proportionality, and the denial of certain interrogatories and requests to admit. Additionally, the court granted the defendants' typo correction, acknowledged the plaintiff's address change, and denied his request for appointed counsel, finding him competent to proceed pro se while summary judgment is pending.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may correct a typographical error in its prior order under Rule 60(a).
- Whether the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of various discovery requests should be granted.
- Whether the defendants' motion to correct a typographical error in their summary‑judgment filing should be granted.
- Whether the plaintiff's miscellaneous relief requests, including address change notice and appointment of counsel, should be granted.
Holdings
- The court may correct the typographical error by striking the erroneous word "not" under Rule 60(a).
- The motion for reconsideration is granted as to the typographical error and denied on all other discovery issues.
- The defendants' motion to correct the typographical error is granted.
- The notice of address change is taken; the request for appointment of counsel is denied.
Key quotations
“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” (-)
“The Court correctly denied that request, given that the Federal Rules provide only for “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added).” (-)
Factual background
Benjamin McBroom, the plaintiff, is an incarcerated individual seeking discovery of recordings of his clergy visits and other communications. He alleged that a recording of a July 17, 2021 clergy visit was made surreptitiously and could not be obtained via subpoena. He also sought discovery regarding a cellmate's similarity and communications with the Logan County State's Attorney.
Procedural history
The district court previously issued an order (Doc. 83) addressing six motions to compel discovery. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 86) alleging a typographical error and other discovery issues. The court considered the motion and related pending motions, granting the correction of the typographical error and denying the remaining requests.