United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
ROY A. DURHAM, JR., Plaintiff,
ROB JEFFREYS, et al., Defendants.
L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.
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. 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. 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).
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
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).
are six remaining claims in this case. 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:
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.
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,
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