United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
E. ROGERS, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is Plaintiff's second Motion to Compel
Discovery. (ECF #134). Defendants filed a response in
opposition to the motion. (ECF #137).
August, 15, 2017, this Court entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's First Motion to
Compel. (ECF. #103). In this current Motion to Compel,
Plaintiff complains that Defendant Bush did not adequately
respond to Interrogatory Nos. 8, 11, and 12 as instructed in
the court's order and requests an order to compel an
answer to Interrogatory No. 9 which was not raised or
addressed in the previous motion or order. In their response,
Defendants contend that they forwarded the supplemental
responses in compliance with the court order to Plaintiff on
September 15, 2017.
court's order (ECF #103), Defendant Bush was ordered to
supplement his interrogatory answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3,
4, 5 and 8. The Court found Defendant Bush's responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 to be sufficient.
No. 8 The following was Plaintiff's
Interrogatory No. 8, Defendant Bush's response, and the
#8: Can you tell me the Courts the occupants of cell #132 and
their charges on the dates of December 22, 2016 threw
December 31, 2016?
This Interrogatory is burdensome, overbroad and seeks
information not reasonably calculated to produce relevant or
admissible information. Upon information and belief, the
names or SCDC numbers of other Inmates are not relevant to
this litigation and to produce the same may be a security
concern without additional information from Plaintiff on why
such information is sought.
ruling: Defendant should respond to Interrogatory #8 to
the extent of his knowledge, if any.
second Motion to Compel, Defendants submit that Defendant
Bush supplemented his response to Interrogatory No. 8 as
The Defendant does not recall the occupants of cell # 132 on
the referenced dates; however, the Defendant responds that he
can provide the court with information responsive to this
interrogatory to the extent that the information is located
in SCDC's records. To the extent that this Interrogatory
asks whether the same information can be provided to the
Plaintiff, the Defendant responds that the disclosure of
names or SCDC numbers of other Inmates may be a security
concern and certainly poses confidentiality issues as noted
in Policy and Procedure OP-21.09 (7), without additional
information from Plaintiff on why such information is sought.
Further, the Defendant requests clarification from the
Plaintiff on what he is seeking with respect to
“charges” for the occupants of cell #132 on the
Bush also included an explanatory statement in the cover
letter for the supplemental Interrogatory No. 8 answer,
requesting clarification on the information sought and why
the Plaintiff believes the information is relevant.
Specifically, the letter to Plaintiff stated:
Please note that Interrogatory No. 8, which asks whether
Warden Bush “can you tell the Courts” the names
of the occupants of cell No. 132 “and their charges,
” does not inquire whether that information can be
supplied to you. If that was the intent of your question, we
need additional information about (a) why you are seeking
that information, because it may raise security concerns as
well as confidentiality concerns that are outlined in SCDC
Policy and Procedure OP-21.09 (7), that may need to be
addressed by the court, and (b) your reference to
“charges, ” which is not entirely clear to us.
assert that prior to Plaintiff's filing of this current
Motion to Compel, they had not been given any additional
information from Plaintiff to evaluate his request and the
security concerns which may be implicated in the same.
However, Defendants state in their response that “in
the spirit of good faith and seeking to resolve this
discovery dispute”, they would provide the information
available through SCDC records regarding the request once it
became available. Specifically, Defendants stated:
Defendants' counsel has already inquired to SCDC security
and document retention staff at BRCI to identify this
information and is awaiting response from the same.
Defendants will make what information is reasonably available
to Plaintiff unless and until the results require additional
input from this Court due to safety concerns or other like
policy issues. Defendants reserve their rights to bring such
matters to the Court's ...