Buy This Entire Record For
Geissler v. Young
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
March 12, 2018
RUSSELL GEISSLER, Plaintiff,
LISA YOUNG, CAPTAIN OF SALUDA DORM; DENNIS BUSH, WARDEN, BROAD RIVER PRISON; BRIAN SMITH, LT. OVER SALUDA ON NIGHT SHIFT; McCLEAN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT BRCI, WASHINGTON, ASSOC. WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendants.
E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Discovery. (ECF #160). Defendants filed a response in
opposition to the motion. (ECF #167).
motion, Plaintiff has complained about responses to
Interrogatory Nos. #1, 5, 6 and 9 presented to Defendant
McLean. Each will be discussed below.
1: Can you tell the Plaintiff the reason SCDC
“terminated” your employment?
Answer: Objection. This interrogatory calls for information
that is not relevant to the current litigation and exceeds
the scope of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
Furthermore, the information sought is contained within a
confidential and restricted resources file that contains,
among other things, personal identifying information
regarding the defendant which needs to remain restricted from
the Inmate population of SCDC for security purposes.
Notwithstanding the previous objection, and not waiving the
same, Defendant's separation from employment at SCDC was
in no way related to the events or allegations at issue in
To the extent this Interrogatory seeks an admission it is
response to this Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the
response was entirely appropriate and any effort to seek
additional personal and confidential information concerning
this former SCDC correctional officer and his personnel file
is objectionable. Id.
Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory No. 1 is granted to the
extent that, within fifteen days from the date of this order,
Defendants are to provide the reason for McLean's
separation from employment to the Plaintiff or if Defendants
want to provide it for in camera review, Defendants
are to also provide a more specific statement to the court as
to why they think the reason for the termination should be
considered protected information.
Where [sic] you known, by multiple inmates, to bring things
in off the “streets” to give to inmates, such as
candy and ink pens?
Answer: Objection. This interrogatory seeks a validation and
or consent to facts that are not in evidence before the
Court. Furthermore, this Interrogatory seeks information that
is not relevant to the current litigation and exceeds the
scope of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).
Notwithstanding the previous objections, and not waiving the
same, the answer to this ...