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.

Durham v. Jeffreys

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

May 21, 2018

ROY A. DURHAM, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
ROB JEFFREYS, et al., Defendants.

          Black, J.

          ORDER

          Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, a former inmate at the Warren Correctional Institution ("WO") in Lebanon, Ohio initiated this action in April 2013 by filing a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his treatment at WCI where he was incarcerated from October 2011 to April 1, 2012.[1] Plaintiff alleges that WCI defendants Rob Jeffreys, Warden Michael Sheets, Justin Johnson, Joseph Little, Adam Keesler, and Justin Reese were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety while he was an inmate at WCI.[2] This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to compel discovery (Doc. 142), plaintiffs motion for a ruling on his motion to compel (Doc. 150), defendants' notice of completion of discovery (Doc. 159), and plaintiffs reply to defendants' notice (Doc. 163).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides the following guidance concerning the scope of discovery:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). ''Demonstrating relevance is the burden of the party seeking discovery." Am. Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. United States, 191 F.R.D. 132, 136 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (citations omitted). Where a party has propounded discovery but has not received adequate responses, that party "may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1).

         There are six remaining claims in this case.[3] Plaintiff now seeks disclosure of nine items in discovery. (Docs. 142, 163). To the extent plaintiffs discovery requests seek information and records from institutions other than WCI, his requests are denied as they are not relevant to his claims in the present case. The Court rules as follows:

         1. Item 1:

         Plaintiff seeks records related to his protective control requests. (Doc. 163 at 1). Plaintiffs request is GRANTED, limited to protective control records relating to plaintiffs claims against the six defendants from alleged incidents at WCI occurring between October 2011 and April 1, 2012.

         2. Item 2:

         Plaintiff seeks medical records relative to his sustained physical injuries. (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs request is GRANTED, limited to medical records relating to his claims against the six defendants from alleged incidents at WCI occurring between October 2011 and April 1, 2012.

         3. Item 3:

         Plaintiff seeks psychological and mental health records. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff has not shown how this discovery is relevant to his deliberate indifference claims against the six defendants at WCI. Accordingly, plaintiffs request is DENIED.

         4. ...


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.