Summary
This district court order addresses a plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses in a civil rights lawsuit alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations by prison officials. The court evaluates multiple requests for production concerning jail guidelines, facility contracts, incident reports, and compliance audits, concluding that most are overbroad, duplicative of records from a related case, or outside the relevant time period and facility. Consequently, the court denies the majority of the motion while compelling limited responses to specific requests focused on the Catahoula Correctional Center.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court must deny the motion to compel because the plaintiff failed to provide a detailed good‑faith certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a).
- Whether the specific requests for production are overbroad and therefore not subject to compulsion.
Holdings
- The court will not deny the motion in its entirety despite the plaintiff’s deficient certification, but will consider the failure when apportioning costs.
- The court will not compel RFP Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 47, 48, 5‑6‑13, and others found overbroad; it will compel RFP Nos. 34 (limited to CCC), 39, 40, 28, 29, 45, 46, 36, 52 (limited portions), and 54 as written.
Key quotations
“the Court will not deny the Motion to Compel in its entirety in light of this failure[,] but will consider Plaintiff’s failure when apportioning costs.” (*5)
“RFP Nos. 1 and 2 are overbroad. Plaintiff was detained at the CCC from April 19, 2022 to August 8, 2022, yet Plaintiff seeks all versions and mentions of the BJG as far back as January 1, 1996.” (*4)
Factual background
Robert Young, a pre‑trial detainee at the Catahoula Correctional Center, alleges 8th and 14th Amendment violations by DPSC officials. He seeks discovery of documents relating to jail guidelines, contracts, incident reports, medical records, and employee files.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a §1983 complaint on August 8, 2023; discovery proceeded; Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on November 2024; defendants responded with objections and supplemental productions; court considered the motion.
Remand instructions
Defendants shall provide supplemental responses, where appropriate and as set forth above, within fourteen (14) days of this Order to RFP Nos. 28‑29, 34, 36, 39, 40, 45‑46, 52, and 54.