Opinion
Civil Action 2:08-cv-770.
August 12, 2009
ORDER
Plaintiff has brought suit claiming, inter alia, that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority wrongly applied an unconstitutionally retroactive parole standard at his 2008 parole hearing. On March 13, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a set of interrogatories and requests for admissions to Defendant Linda Janes. (Doc. 27.) On April 10, 2009 Defendant's counsel submitted to Plaintiff responses to these interrogatories and requests for admission. (Doc. 27 at 6-10.) On April 21, 2009, Plaintiff sent to Defendant an "extra-judicial request for answers and admissions", which took the form of an attempt to confer to obtain discovery without court action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(a)(1) and S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.1. No response to this correspondence is before the Court. On May 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, arguing that the respondent failed to sign her interrogatory responses, that the responses to discovery were incomplete and evasive, and that her objections were overbroad. He states that these incomplete responses "completely frustrate Plaintiff's efforts at gathering evidence to prove his claims." (Doc. 26 at 2.)
Plaintiff alleges that Linda Janes is the successor in office to named defendant Harry Hageman. (Doc. 25 at 1.) Defendants' counsel filed a motion on behalf of Linda Janes on June 8, 2009, but made no assertion as to Ms. Janes' office or position. (Doc. 30 at 2.) Ms. Janes appears to be the deputy director of the Division of Parole and Community Services at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Mr. Hageman was sued in this action in his capacity as the chairman of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority. It is unknown whether Ms. Janes is also the chairwoman of this authority, as O.R.C. § 5149.02 does not provide that the office is automatically filled by the deputy director. However, the Court will presume that Ms. Janes is Mr. Hageman's successor in this capacity as well.
Plaintiff complains that "Defendant Janes has not personally responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests." (Doc. 26 at 2.) Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 33(b)(5) requires the respondent to interrogatories to sign her responses. However, Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 36(a)(3) provides that a respondent's counsel may sign responses to requests for admissions.
The responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests are before the Court. He submitted eight interrogatories and four requests for admissions (Doc. 27 at 6-10). Defendant Linda Janes's interrogatory responses did not contain her signature as to answers and her counsel's signature as to objections, as required by Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 33(b)(5). Moreover, despite the requirement at Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 33(b)(4) that the grounds for objecting to an interrogatory be stated with specificity, the objections are in many cases extremely terse. Plaintiff's eighth interrogatory is as follows:
8. Please describe with specificity the policies, practices and customs concerning parole of Ohio prisoners who have been classified as "Part 1 Violent Offenders," as described by the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994," as it would relate to the average amount of time served by the Plaintiff.
Defendant's response was "Objection: Irrelevant; ambiguous; vague." (Doc. 27 at 8.)
On June 8, 2009, Defendant moved for an extension of time to respond to the motion to compel. The Court granted this on June 10, 2009. On June 26, 2009, Defendant moved for another extension of time to respond. The Court granted this on June 29, 2009. On July 13, 2009, Defendant moved for a third extension of time to respond. The Court granted this on July 17, 2009, setting a final response deadline of August 7, 2009 with the caveat that no further extensions would be granted. This deadline has now elapsed, and Defendant has not opposed the motion to compel. The Court will now proceed, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(a), to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's unopposed request for an order compelling discovery.
In general, the Court will not entertain Defendant's repeated objection that she did not participate in Plaintiff's parole release hearing (Interrs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The Chairperson of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority was sued in his or her official capacity, and so is expected to respond with information available to that entity, regardless of the personal actions or experiences of its chairperson (Doc. 1-3 at 5-6). Furthermore, Defendant repeatedly objected that "Plaintiff can utilize the procedure outlined in O.A.C. 5120:1-1-36" to obtain the information he seeks (Interrs. 2, 3, 4, 5). Plaintiff could, perhaps, do this thing. However, he has chosen instead to utilize the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the furtherance of his civil lawsuit. Defendant is expected to comply with her obligations under those rules.
Interrogatories.
1. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to provide her full name, the mailing address of her place of employment, a list of any offices or positions she holds under the government of the State of Ohio, her current job title or titles, and a description of her duties and responsibilities under each and every position.
2. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to list, to the best of her ability, all documents created, used, or referenced at Plaintiff's parole hearing in May 2008.
3. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to list all persons who were present at Plaintiff's parole hearing in May 2008.
4. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to list all persons who gave testimony or submitted statements at Plaintiff's parole hearing in May 2008.
5. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to list all persons known to her who may have knowledge of discoverable documents or information relating to the claims Plaintiff has brought in this litigation, as well as a statement of what the nature of that information might be, in the same manner as if Defendant were making initial disclosures under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)(1)(A), the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(a)(1)(B)(iv) notwithstanding.
6. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to provide a description of any and all policies, directives, and guidelines used by the parole board and hearing officers at Plaintiff's May 2008 parole hearing, whether or not they were noted on the decision sheet.
7. Defendant's response is sufficient, in that Plaintiff's interrogatory is overbroad.
8. Defendant's response is sufficient, in that Plaintiff's interrogatory is ambiguous. The Court cannot determine what Plaintiff means by "as it would relate to the average amount of time served by the Plaintiff".
Defendant is further ORDERED to certify her interrogatory responses as provided for by Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 33(b)(5).
Requests for admission.
1. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended answer to this request for admission in a fashion compliant with Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 36(a)(4).
2. Defendant's response is sufficient, in that Plaintiff's request is vague. The Court cannot determine what Plaintiff means by "a sufficient risk".
3. Defendant's response is insufficient. The Court finds it difficult to believe that Defendant requires documentation in Plaintiff's possession before being able to determine how her agency classifies him. Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended answer to this request for admission. If Ohio has no "Part 1 Violent Offender" classification, then Defendant may accordingly deny the admission.
4. Defendant's response is insufficient. Defendant is ORDERED to serve an amended answer to this request for admission in a fashion compliant with Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 36(a)(4).
Defendant is further ORDERED to produce the discovery required above within twenty-one days of the date of entry of this Order.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. and Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within ten (10) days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.