Daytrend MOSES v. Shanice MORGAN CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-0390 United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division Signed August 10, 2018 Counsel Daytrend Moses, Homer, LA, Pro Se. Eddie David Gilmer, LA Atty General's Office, Shreveport, LA, for Shanice Morgan. Hayes, Karen L., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM ORDER *1 Before the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the District Court, are three discovery-related motions filed by plaintiff pro se Daytrend Moses: 1) motion for entry of default [doc. # 57]; 2) motion for default judgment [doc. # 58]; and 3) motion to amend discovery request [doc. # 59]. The motions are opposed. For reasons assigned below, the motions for default are denied and the motion to amend discovery request is granted-in-part.[1] Background Plaintiff pro se Daytrend Moses, who is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 22, 2016. Moses is an inmate in the custody of Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections and is incarcerated at David Wade Correctional Center (“DWCC”) in Homer, Louisiana. He complains that on November 28, 2015, he was a victim of excessive force perpetrated by corrections officer Shanice Morgan. Moses sued Morgan, praying for a transfer to another facility and compensatory damages for physical pain and suffering for a sum no less than $500,000. On June 19, 2017, plaintiff served defense counsel with interrogatories and requests for production and admission. See M/Compel, Decl. and Exhs. When by November 22, 2017, defendants had not responded to the discovery, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. On May 16, 2018, the court partially granted plaintiff's motion to compel. (May 16, 2018, Order [doc. # 54]). In so doing, the court ordered defendant to supplement her discovery responses within fourteen days from the date of the order. Id. On May 30, 2018, defendant so complied. [doc. # 56]. On June 1, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant motion for entry of default. In support of his motion, he argued that defendant failed to comply with the court's May 16, order. Accordingly, he requested default as one of the remedies available under Rule 37(b)(2) for failure to obey a discovery order. On June 13, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment that paralleled and supplemented his earlier motion for entry of default. Also on June 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to amend his discovery requests to require defendant to produce use of force reports, plus any and all grievances and complaints against defendant dating back to August 1, 2013. Plaintiff also requested an order requiring defendant to produce all use of force reports involving defendant's supervisors, Captains Shantell Coleman and Ryan Kimball from August 1, 2013, until the present. On July 10, 2018, defendant filed her responses to plaintiff's motions. [doc. #s 62 & 63]. As to the motions for default, defendant emphasized that she timely complied with the court's discovery order. Defense counsel adduced a copy of a cover letter showing that he mailed plaintiff a copy of the discovery responses. (May 30, 2018, Letter from D. Gilmer to D. Moses; Def. Opp. Memo., Exh. 2). *2 In her response to plaintiff's motion to amend discovery request, defendant conceded, as noted by plaintiff, that she inadvertently had failed to disclose that she had been named as a defendant in another civil rights complaint. Nonetheless, defendant objected to plaintiff's amended discovery request on the grounds of relevancy and because the production was not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. On July 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his motion to amend discovery request only. Accordingly, the matter is ripe. Analysis I. Motions for Default Rule 37(b)(2) authorizes default as a potential remedy against a party that disobeys an order to provide or permit discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(vi). Here, however, the evidence before the court confirms that defendant timely complied with the court's discovery order. Accordingly, sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) are neither available nor warranted. II. Motion to Amend Discovery Request Under Rule 26(b), [u]nless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: 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 benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The courts understand the rule to provide for broad and liberal discovery. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114-5 (1964); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385 (1947). Nonetheless, the scope of discovery is limited by relevance, albeit “relevance” is to be broadly construed. Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 284 (5th Cir. 1982). The court finds that grievances, performance reports, and use of force reports involving defendant are potentially relevant to this case.[2] Moreover, defendant has not argued or established that it would prove unduly burdensome for her to produce the requested discovery for the period from August 1, 2013, until the present. However, the court will not require defendant to produce reports involving Captains Coleman and Kimball. They are not parties to the case, and plaintiff has failed to establish that use of force reports involving non-parties are relevant to his claim against Morgan. Conclusion For the above-assigned reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for entry of default and for default judgment [doc. # 57 & 58] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend discovery request [doc. # 59] is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as detailed in the body this decision. Defendant shall provide responsive documents to plaintiff's supplemental discovery request within the next fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. In addition to providing plaintiff with a copy of the supplemental responses, defendant shall file a copy in the court record, under seal. *3 In Chambers, at Monroe, Louisiana, this 10th day of August 2018. Footnotes [1] As these motions are not excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing order of this court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a) and L.R. 74.1(W). [2] “[A]lthough evidence of other bad acts committed by a defendant is not generally admissible to prove the character of that person or to show that he acted in conformity with such bad character on a particular occasion ... such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, as for example, to show intent.” Montgomery v. Boutee, No. 07-0094, 2010 WL 2545652, at *2 (M.D. La. June 21, 2010) (citations omitted). Moreover, information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible to be discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).