Timothy Marcus Mayberry v. Nate Pulley, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana addressed Timothy Marcus Mayberry's third motion to compel discovery, a motion for law library access, and related requests for sanctions and to strike. The court partially granted the motion to compel by ordering the Aramark defendants to provide paper copies of discovery produced on DVD, denied the remaining discovery requests without prejudice or on other grounds, denied law library access, denied sanctions and the motion to strike, and set a dispositive-motion deadline.

Holdings

1. Discovery may encompass any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, and the court has broad discretion to determine and manage its scope.
2. The Aramark defendants were required to serve Mayberry with paper copies of discovery that they had provided to him by DVD.
3. Mayberry was denied an additional opportunity to file a motion to compel concerning the specified requests because he had lacked diligence in reviewing the supplemental discovery.
4. The court denied the motion to compel as to Request No. 2 because Mayberry had not shown that the State defendants had control over materials in Aramark's possession, and the court was not required to order duplicative production.
5. The request for financial information was denied without prejudice to renewal if Mayberry's claims survived summary judgment.
6. Neither party's arguments warranted sanctions, and Mayberry's reply would not be stricken because allowing it to remain on the docket would not prejudice the State defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mayberry was entitled to paper copies of supplemental discovery produced on DVD.
2. Whether Mayberry should receive an additional opportunity to move to compel responses to specified requests for production after reviewing the supplemental discovery.
3. Whether the State defendants were required to produce documents allegedly in Aramark's possession in response to Request No. 2.
4. Whether requests for financial information relevant to punitive damages should be denied without prejudice to renewal after summary judgment.
5. Whether Mayberry was entitled to additional law-library access.
6. Whether sanctions or striking Mayberry's reply were warranted.

Disposition

other