Barasky v. Shoemaker
| Decision Date | 03 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:20-cv-2457,1:20-cv-2457 |
| Parties | ANTHONY BARASKY, Plaintiff v. BRAD SHOEMAKER, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Rambo)
Presently before the Court are the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 20) filed by Defendants Brad Shoemaker ("Shoemaker"), Ryan Barnes ("Barnes"), and Chris Ebner ("Ebner"), as well as the motion to compel (Doc. No. 24) filed by pro se Plaintiff Anthony Barasky ("Plaintiff"). The motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition.
Plaintiff , who is currently incarcerated at the Lycoming County Prison ("LCP") in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, initiated the above-captioned action on December 30, 2020 by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) In March 2020, Defendant Shoemaker issued a memorandum cancelling visitation at LCP because of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff avers that he was committed to LCP on October 2, 2020. (Id. ¶ 9.) On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff had a contact visit with Parole Officer Jason Lamay "pertaining to a detention hearing scheduling." (Id. ¶ 10.) On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff had a non-contact visit "via the visitation phone system" with his attorney. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff objected, citing attorney-client privilege, and was told by Defendant Barnes that his phone calls were not being monitored. (Id.) On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a request slip seeking a mental health evaluation, and he had the mental health evaluation on December 16, 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by cancelling all visitation. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages. (Id. ¶¶ 24-31.)
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may seek a Court Order compelling disclosures or discovery of the materials sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). "The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the information sought to a particular claim or defense." Montanez v. Tritt, No. 14-cv-1362, 2016 WL 3035310, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 26, 2016). "The burden then shifts to the opposing party, who must demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within the broad scope of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper." Id. (citing Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255, 258 (E.D. Pa. 1982)).
It is well-established that rulings concerning the proper scope of discovery and the extent to which discovery may be compelled are within the Court's discretion. See Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1987). The Court's decision regarding the conduct of discovery, including whether to compel disclosure of materials sought in discovery, will only be disturbed upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Marroquin-Manriquez v. I.N.S., 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party "may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) provides for a broad scope of discovery. Consequently, courts often - and appropriately - liberally apply discovery rules. See, e.g., Clements v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 300 F.R.D. 225, 226 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (citing Great W. Life Assurance Co. v. Levithan, 152 F.R.D. 494, 497 (E.D. Pa. 1994)). Nonetheless, a "valid claim[] of relevance or privilege" operates to restrict a court's otherwise broad discretion under Rule 26(b)(1). See McConnell v. Canadian Pac. Realty Co., 280 F.R.D. 188, 192-93 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendants to provide more complete responses to three (3) of his discovery requests. Plaintiff first seeks a copy of his professional visitation log. (Doc. No. 24 at 3.) In response, Defendants state that "since the date the present motion was filed, [they] have produced the professional visitors log" that Plaintiff seeks. (Doc. No. 26 at 5; Doc. No. 26-3.) Plaintiff's motion to compel will, therefore, be denied as moot as to this discovery request.
Plaintiff also seeks the "policy statements, protocols, and/or procedures of the prison only pertaining to its mitigation of Covid-19." (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) Plaintiff claims that his complaint is "ground upon the regulations, protocols, and procedure(s) that were and are being imposed and if they violated the right of the plaintiff." (Id. at 3.) As an initial matter, this was not a discovery request included in either of Plaintiff's requests for production. (See Doc. Nos. 26-1, 26-2.) Rather, Plaintiff sought production of all records or notes of staff meetings pertaining to COVID-19 protocols and procedures. (Doc. No. 26-1 at 5.) In response, Defendants objected, stating:
Objection. The answering defendants object to the extent this request: 1) exceeds the permissible scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2) seeks privileged information pursuant to the Attorney-Client Privilege and/or Attorney Work Product Doctrine; 3)is unduly burdensome and oppressive, or may require the answering defendants to conduct an unreasonable investigation; 4) is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 5) is not proportionate to the needs of the case; and/or 6) seeks confidential information in the context of a request by an inmate to the administrators of a correctional facility.
(Id.) The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff's request is disproportionate. Plaintiff's complaint takes issue with the cancellation of visitation during the COVID-19 pandemic and not LCP's entire protocol and procedure in response. Plaintiff's motion, therefore, will be denied as to this request.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks a copy of his mental health evaluation. (Doc. No. 24 at 3.) He asserts that he is claiming that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because the lack of visitation caused "extreme indignities, severe emotional distress, pain and suffering." (Id.) In response, Defendants stated that this request exceeded the permissible scope of discovery, was "vague, ambiguous, overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and was "not proportionate to the needs of the case." (Doc. No. 26-1 at 6.) The Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff's complaint does not raise any claims regarding the adequacy of his medical or mental health treatment. Plaintiff's motion to compel, therefore, will be denied as to this discovery request.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). The Court's inquiry is guided by the standards of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Under Twombly and Iqbal, pleading requirements have shifted to a "more heightened form of pleading." See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must set out "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. Id. The plausibility standard requires more than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
Accordingly, to determine the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified the following steps a district court must take when determining the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) identify the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint "not entitled" to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether any "well-pleaded factual allegations" contained in the complaint "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). A court may also consider "any 'matters incorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, [and] items appearing in the record of the case.'" Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d Ed.2004)); see also Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) ()...
To continue reading
Request your trial