Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Nurse Brown was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when he refused to provide plaintiff with insulin. Pending before the court are the parties' motions to compel. The court will address each in turn.
DEFENDANT BROWN'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant Brown has filed a motion to compel plaintiff to provide further responses to his "First Set of Interrogatories." Specifically, defendant Brown seeks further responses to interrogatory numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Defendant's interrogatories and plaintiff's responses thereto are as follows:
Special Interrogatory No. 1: Please state all facts which support your contention that defendant L.V.N. Brown violated your civil or constitutional rights.
Response to Interrogatory No. 1: Because the defendant L.V.N. Brown had acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's health and safety. In doing so, violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right by depriving him his insulin shot.
Special Interrogatory No. 3: Please describe each incident involving defendant L.V.N. Brown that you contend constituted a violation of your civil or constitutional rights. Response to Interrogatory No. 3: OBJECTION the request is compound, vague and ambiguous as to the phrase "each incident involving the defendant." If defendant wants to know about the incident at hand, refer to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint claim.
Special Interrogatory No. 4: Please state all facts that support your contention that you sustained injury or damage as a result of defendant L.V.N. Brown's acts or omissions.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4: Plaintiff was sweating profusely and was complaining of being queasy and somewhat incoherent.
Special Interrogatory No. 5: Please state all facts in support of your contention that you exhausted administrative remedies with regard to your claims against defendant L.V.N. Brown.
Response to Interrogatory No. 5: OBJECTION this request is argumentative, compound, and vague. This question is all contained in the complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and is already been establish as admissible evidence of exhausted administrative remedies.
Special Interrogatory No. 7: Please identify all documents that support your contention that defendant L.V.N. Brown violated your civil or constitutional rights.
Response to Interrogatory No. 7: Please refer to interrogatory No. 1 and 2, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil complaint claim.
In his motion to compel, counsel for defendant Brown argues that the discovery he seeks is relevant, but that plaintiff has failed to provide any substantive responses to the interrogatories propounded by defendant. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to defendant's motion.
Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The court agrees with defense counsel that defendant Brown's interrogatories seek relevant information from plaintiff. Specifically, defendant Brown has asked plaintiff to elaborate on the factual basis underlying his deliberate indifference claim against defendant Brown and his allegation that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. Defendant Brown also asks plaintiff to identify any documents that support his deliberate indifference claim. This information is central to the pending litigation. Plaintiff's responses are vague and conclusory, and his objections to the propounded discovery lack merit. Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may order further responses to "an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). Accordingly, the court ...