Anthony Lipscomb v. State of Rhode Island, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses from pro se Plaintiff Anthony Lipscomb. The court orders responses to a document request and several interrogatories by December 22, 2025, but finds that the defendants failed to establish the relevance of interrogatories concerning prior civil lawsuits and arrests.

Holdings

1. A party seeking discovery bears the burden of demonstrating that the requested information falls within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)'s scope of nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.
2. The motion to compel was granted in part: Lipscomb was ordered to respond to the first request for production and to provide specified additional or complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 by December 22, 2025.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should compel Lipscomb to respond to the Defendant Officers' first request for production of documents.
2. Whether the court should compel more complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11.
3. Whether the Defendant Officers established under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) that Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6, concerning prior civil lawsuits and arrests, sought relevant and proportional information.

Disposition

other