Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03040/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03040-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

MICHAEL S. GRIFFIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-3040

 

SHERIFF CHUCK MEDFORD;

LT. BETH REELY; JIMMY

KEELAND; MICHAEL BROWN;

PETE MOSS; JACK GENTRY;

MARK LOTTA; DR. THERESA FARROW; 

DR. DONALD CLAY; SHELIA M.

HOWERTON; and REGINA FOX JEFFREY DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Currently before the court are the following motions: (1) the plaintiff’s motion

requesting access to electronic filing (Doc. 135); (2) the motion for protective order filed by the

Carroll County Defendants (Doc. 138 and supplement Doc. 145); (3) the plaintiff’s motion to

compel (Doc. 143); (4) the plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 144); and (5) the plaintiff’s motion

for an extension of time to respond to the summary judgment questionnaires propounded by the

court (Doc. 148).

The Motion Requesting Electronic Access (Doc. 135)

The plaintiff maintains it will serve judicial economy and expedite the proceedings if he

is given access to the court’s electronic filing system CM/ECF. He also maintains it will enable

all parties to have equal and unbiased access to the court. He suggests this access will reduce

the appearance of partiality towards the defendants. 

Plaintiff states he also needs to examine documents submitted by the defendants to ensure

that there have been no alterations to the documents. He asks that he be allowed to investigate

any inconsistences between the documents submitted to the court and those provided to him.

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Finally, he maintains defendants have submitted documents to the court that are inconsistent with

the rules regarding electronic filing.

This court implemented the Case Management/Electronic Case File System (CM/ECF)

effective August 15, 2005. General Order 36 approved the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures

Manual for Civil Filings (the Manual). Underthe Manual only attorneys may become registered

filing users of the CM/ECF system. Manual, Sec. II. Pro se individuals desiring to file materials

“shall file paper original of pleadings with the Clerk’s office. The Clerk’s office will scan these

original documents into an electronic file [and] upload them in the System.” Manual, Sec. IV.

The motion for electronic access (Doc. 135) is denied.

The Motion for Protective Order and Supplement (Doc. 138 and 145)

 The Carroll County Defendants state that since this court has enforced the limit set by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the number of interrogatories the plaintiff may propound

the plaintiff has submitted 267 requests for the production of documents and 361 requests for

admission. Defendants assert the plaintiff has annoyed, burdened, and harassed the defendants

and their counsel with his repetitive requests, allegations, correspondence, and pleadings.

Defendants’ motion contains a recitation of just a few of the personal attacks plaintiff has made

against the defendants and their counsel in various documents and correspondence including

accusing defense counsel of lying and engaging in unprofessional conduct. 

Defendants ask the court to enter an order directing the plaintiff to stop annoying, unduly

burdening, and harassing the defendants with irrelevant and repetitive requests and

correspondence and that verbal attacks on the character of the defendants and their counsel stop.

Defendants also ask that the court orderthat discovery cease or that discovery be limited in scope

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

and a time frame be established bywhich discoverymust end. Alternatively, defendants ask that

the matter be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing. 

In his response to the motion (Doc. 149), plaintiff asserts the defendants have been

fraudulent, evasive, misleading and deceptive and uncooperative in their discovery responses.

He indicates the discovery requests will in fact lead to discoverable material. 

He maintains defendants’ counsel is engaged in a conspiracy to cover up crimes that

reaches into high levels of government. Plaintiff asserts he is unsatisfied with the “sorry, lame

and unprofessional conduct of defense counsel–ashamed in fact.” He also asserts this court has

shown bias towards him and has failed in its obligation and responsibility to investigate

allegations of cruel and unusual punishment. He suggests the judges assigned to this case will

not be the first or the last judges to be removed from office.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for liberal discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(1). See also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed.

2d 1 (2002). Specifically, Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding

any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” 

Discovery, however, is not without limit. For example, Rule 33 limits the number of

interrogatories served on any party to twenty-five in number including all discrete sub-parts.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). The court may also limit discovery if it determines that: 

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or

less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by

discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into

account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources,

the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the

proposed discovery in resolving the issues. The court may act upon its own

initiative after reasonable notice or pursuant to a motion under Rule 26(c).

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(B)(2)(C).

When a party objects to the opposing party’s manner of conducting discovery the proper

remedy is to seek a protective order. See e.g., Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., Inc., 293 F.3d

1306, 1325 (11th Cir. 2002). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides as follows: 

Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, . . . for

good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending . . . may make any

order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more

of the following:

(1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had;

(2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms

and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; 

(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other

than that selected by the party seeking discovery;

(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the

disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;

* * *

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

The burden of establishing good cause for a protective order rests on the movant. See

e.g., General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973). This

burden requires a particular and specific demonstration of fact; conclusory statements are not

sufficient. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003);

United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978). 

A careful review of not only the motion for protective order but of the various documents

filed in this case including the exhibits attached thereto, indicates the plaintiff has filed

voluminous discovery requests many of which appear to be repetitive. His correspondence with

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

defense counsel indicates he has consistently displayed what can at best be described as a hostile

and abrasive attitude toward counsel including engaging in personal attacks on the integrity of

defense counsel.

Plaintiff has made, and continues to make, disrespectful statements towards defendants,

defendants’ counsel, and this court in various pleadings filed with this court and in letters

submitted to the court and defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff is advised that the court expects all

parties appearing before the court to be respectful of each other and of the court. Plaintiff is

cautioned that offensive words and utterances serve no purpose and only cause delay in these

proceedings. 

The motion for protective order (Doc. 138 & 145) is granted in part. Specifically, it is

granted in the following respects: (1) Plaintiff is directed avoid referring to defendants,

defendants’ or the court as criminals, or liars, or other similar disrespectful terminology; and (2)

No further discovery will be propounded by any party in this case. 

The Motion to Compel (Doc. 143)

Plaintiff asks the court to order the Carroll County Defendants to respond to requests for

admission he propounded on May 7, 2007. He maintains the defendants have failed to respond

in the thirty days allowed by the rules.

The Carroll County Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel on June 25,

2007 (Doc. 146). In their response, they note they received the ninety-four requests for

admission on May 11th. They state they put their responses in the mail to the plaintiff on June

7th. Defendants have attached to their response a copy of their cover letter (dated June 6th) to

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

the plaintiff and their responses to the requests for admission (certificate of service dated June

6th).

The motion to compel (Doc. 143) is therefore denied as moot. 

The Motion to Compel (Doc. 144)

 In his motion to compel, plaintiff indicates that on April 30, 2007, he propounded a

request for production to the defendants that included a request for the plans and/or blueprints

to the physical structure located at 210 W. Church Street, Berryville, Arkansas, formerly the

Carroll County Jail. Plaintiff maintains it is necessary that he have this information regarding

the location of cells, room, and other areas in the jail as well as dimensions, etc., to support his

claims.

The Carroll County Defendants filed a response to the motion on June 25, 2007 (Doc.

147). They note that on March 29, 2007, they received the following request for production:

Request for Production No. 1: Produce the blueprints of the facility located at

210 W. Church Street, Berryville, Arkansas or alternatively provide the precise

measurements of A. The single man cell located on “J” block, B. The single man

cell located on “M” block, C. The double man cell located on “M” block, D.

The room commonly referred to as “J” block recreation area, E. The observation

cell, F. The “M” Block recreation area, G. The booking area, H. The dispatch

area–the plans and/or blueprints are desired.

On or about April 27, 2007, the Carroll County Defendants state they provided the

plaintiff with the following response:

Response: See attached not-to-scale drawing the measurements of the J-Block

one man cell, the dispatch area, the M-Block one man cell, the J-Block recreation

area, the observation cell, the M-Block two man cell, the M-Block recreation

area, and the booking area.

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

Attached as exhibits to the defendants’ response is the defendants’ cover letter dated

April 27, 2007, forwarding the responses to requests for production to the plaintiff and the

discovery responses. The drawing referenced is attached to the responses and contains the

measurements of each area. The motion to compel (144) is therefore denied as moot.

The Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 148)

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking additional time to respond to the summary judgment

questionnaire sent by the court to assist him in responding to the Carroll County Defendants’

summary judgment motion. He maintains he did not receive with the defendants’ summary

judgment motions the exhibits.

The motion for an extension of time (Doc. 148) is granted. Plaintiff is given until

August 17, 2007, to respond to the summary judgment questionnaire (Doc. 142). The Carroll

County Defendants are directed to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the exhibits they

submitted with their motion for summary judgment (Doc. 89). Plaintiff should be provided

with these exhibits by July 6, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of June 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 150 Filed 06/28/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>