United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANSONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Compel Better Responses to Request to Produce (Doc. 69),
Defendants' Motion to Compel Better Answers to
Interrogatories (Doc. 70), and Plaintiff's responses in
opposition thereto (Docs. 75, 76).
March 7, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Darrell Archer filed his
First Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Winter
Haven, Winter Haven Police Department, Wal-Mart Stores East,
LP, Sgt. Dan Gaskin, Sgt. Ken Nicols, Sgt. Brad Webster,
Edward Camp, Charles Caraway, and Kristine Wood. (Doc. 32).
Plaintiff alleges that on November 26, 2015, he purchased a
television at a Walmart store and, as he was leaving the
store, an unidentified Walmart employee requested to see a
receipt for the purchase of the television. (Id. at
p. 3). Plaintiff refused to produce the receipt.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he was subsequently
prevented from leaving the store for 10 to 15 minutes,
threatened with theft and trespass charges, and then asked to
leave the store without his property. (Id. at pp.
brings the following causes of action against Defendants: (1)
“Violations of Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments[;]” (2) “Deprivation of Civil Rights
Pursuant to 42 USC 1983[;]” (3) “Violation of 18
USC 241, 242[;] Conspiracy Against Rights and 42 USC
1985(3)[;]” (4) “Florida State Law
Negligence[;]” and (5) “Wrongful Imprisonment in
Violation of Florida 787.02 False Imprisonment[.]”
5, 2017, Defendants City of Winter Haven, Sgt. Dan Gaskin,
and Sgt. Ken Nichols served Plaintiff with their First
Request for Production and Interrogatories (Docs. 69-B,
70-B), and Plaintiff responded (Docs. 69-C, 70-C). On July
12, 2017, Defendants filed the instant motions to compel
arguing that a number of Plaintiff's discovery responses
were inadequate. (Docs. 69, 70). On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff
filed responses in opposition to Defendants' motions.
(Doc. 75, 76). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
to compel discovery are committed to the sound discretion of
the trial court. See Commercial Union Ins. Co.
v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). Rule
26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
scope of discovery. That rule provides, in relevant part,
[p]arties 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. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relying on this definition of the
scope of proper discovery, the Court will address the
discovery requests and responses at issue.
Defendants seek to compel better responses to Interrogatory
Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 17, as well as Request for
Production Nos. 10, 11, 12, 31, 32, and 34. Essentially,
there are five categories of discovery requests at issue: (1)
discovery related to Plaintiff's mental and physical
health; (2) discovery related to Plaintiff's prior and
subsequent arrests or detentions; (3) discovery related to
other lawsuits involving Plaintiff; (4) requests for personal
information; and (5) requests for damages calculation
information. The Court will address each category of
discovery requests in turn.
Mental and Physical Health
Defendants' discovery requests seeking Plaintiff's
medical records and history, the following requests and
responses are at issue:
Request for Production No. 10: Any
and all medical reports, opinions, or other written memoranda
from doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners and
health care providers reflecting any and all care, treatment,
or evaluation provided to [Plaintiff] for the last ten years.
Response:Objection, not relevant.
Request for Production No. 11: Any
and all hospital records reflecting any and all care,
treatment, or evaluation provided to [Plaintiff] for the last
ten years, including outpatient records and emergency room
Response:Objection, not relevant.
Request for Production No. 12
and all reports, opinions, or other written memoranda from
any and all psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social
workers, psychiatric nurses and mental health counselors
reflecting any and all care, treatment, and ...