Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Geissler v. Young

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

March 12, 2018

RUSSELL GEISSLER, Plaintiff,
v.
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.

          ORDER

          THOMAS E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF #160). Defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion. (ECF #167).

         In this motion, Plaintiff has complained about responses to Interrogatory Nos. #1, 5, 6 and 9 presented to Defendant McLean. Each will be discussed below.

         Interrogatory No. 1

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 this lawsuit.
To the extent this Interrogatory seeks an admission it is denied.

         In the 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.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         Interrogatory No. 5

         5. 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.