Guy Bicking v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Guy Bicking’s motion to compel discovery and motion for sanctions in his ADA action against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The court held that Bicking had not identified specific undisclosed documents warranting production and had not shown that asserted privileges should be overcome. The court also granted the DOC’s motion to preserve its jury demand and established briefing-related deadlines for other pending motions.

Holdings

1. The motion to compel was denied because Bicking did not clearly identify documents that had not already been produced, sought an admission through a request for production, or sought documents the DOC represented did not exist.
2. The DOC did not waive its attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges as a sanction for the delay in producing discovery.
3. Sanctions were denied because the record showed multiple explanations for the delay and ongoing communication between the parties.
4. The court granted the DOC's motion and deemed its jury demand timely filed and served because new counsel showed that the demand had been inadvertently omitted from the answer.
5. The court granted the DOC's extension for summary-judgment motions, making those motions due thirty days after the court entered an order on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted an extension for responding to the settlement-officer request until fourteen days after that order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bicking was entitled to an order compelling further responses or production to four requests for production.
2. Whether the DOC waived asserted attorney-client, work-product, or deliberative-process privileges because of delays in responding to discovery.
3. Whether sanctions were warranted for the DOC's alleged discovery delays and failure to respond timely to related requests.
4. Whether the DOC should be permitted to amend its answer to preserve an inadvertently omitted jury demand.
5. Whether the DOC was entitled to an extension of time to file dispositive motions and respond to Bicking's settlement-officer request.

Disposition

other