Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01133/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01133-7/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MARCELLUS BREACH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-1133-MEF

)

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., ) (WO Do Not Publish)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on several written objections to orders of Magistrate

Judge Terry F. Moorer filed by Plaintiff Marcellus Breach (“Breach”) (Docs. ## 634-37, 649,

658). Breach is objecting to Judge Moorer’s denial of several discovery-related motions that

Breach filed in an attempt to compel Defendant-Doctors Michael E. Robbins (“Dr. Robbins”)

and William D. Hobbs (“Dr. Hobbs”) to respond to his discovery requests. This Court

addresses these objections below.

I. FACTS

On October 29, 2007, Breach served Dr. Robbins with a document entitled Second

Set of Interrogatories and Request for Admissions, For Production of Documents to

Defendants Under Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. # 187). On November 13, 2007, Breach served Dr.

Hobbs with a document entitled Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories (Doc. # 226). On

December 7, 2007, Breach served Drs. Hobbs and Robbins with Plaintiff’s Supplemental

Discovery Request (Docs. ## 314, 315), which included additional interrogatories. On

December 21, 2007, Dr. Robbins filed Objections to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 9
2

(Doc. # 340), and Dr. Hobbs filed Objections to Plaintiff’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories

(Doc. # 341). Dr. Robbins objected to all of Breach’s interrogatories, requests for production

of documents, and requests for admissions contained in his Second Set of Interrogatories in

blanket objections as “immaterial, irrelevant, not calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” Dr. Hobbs objected to all but a few of Breach’s interrogatories as

“immaterial, irrelevant, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” For

the interrogatories that Dr. Hobbs did not object to, he referred Breach to the medical records

already produced in the case. Furthermore, Dr. Hobbs objected to all of Breach’s requests

for admissions in a blanket objection as “immaterial, irrelevant, not calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.” Neither Dr. Robbins nor Dr. Hobbs addressed any of the

interrogatories in Breach’s Supplemental Discovery Requests in these filings.

On February 8, 2008, the deadline for completion of discovery passed. On February

13, 2008, Drs. Robbins and Hobbs had not responded to Breach’s Supplemental Discovery

Requests, and Breach filed a Motion to Compel answers to those requests (Docs. ## 463,

464). On February 14, 2008, Judge Moorer issued Orders to Show Cause (Docs. ## 467,

468) for Drs. Robbins and Hobbs regarding the Motions to Compel. Neither defendant

responded to these show cause orders. On February 21, 2008, Breach filed Motions to

Compel (Docs. ## 480, 481) answers to his Second Set of Interrogatories (Doc. # 187) and

Fourth Set of Interrogatories (Doc. # 226). On February 22, 2008, Judge Moorer issued

Orders to Show Cause (Docs. ## 484, 485) for Drs. Robbins and Hobbs regarding these

Motions to Compel. Neither defendant responded to these show cause orders.

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 9
3

On March 14, 2008, Breach filed Motions for Sanctions (Docs. ## 540, 541) for

Defendants’ failure to respond to the Court’s show cause orders. On March 18, 2008, Judge

Moorer issued Orders to Show Cause (Docs. ## 545, 546) for Drs. Robbins and Hobbs

regarding the Motions for Sanctions. Neither defendant responded to these show cause

orders, either. On April 7, 2008, Breach filed Motions for Contempt (Docs. ## 559, 560)

regarding Defendants’ continuing failure to respond to the Court’s show cause orders. On

April 8, 2008, Judge Moorer again issued Orders to Show Cause (Docs. ## 562, 563) for Drs.

Robbins and Hobbs regarding the Motions for Contempt.

On April 28, 2008, after more than two months and eight show cause orders, Drs.

Robbins and Hobbs finally responded in the form of a global response (Doc. # 600) to the

Court’s Orders to Show Cause.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court is not pleased by Defendants’ demonstrated failure to respond to this

Court’s orders. Completely ignoring repeated orders from this Court to file a response is

inexcusable. Their conduct demonstrates that either Defendants do not take this case

seriously, or they do not take this Court seriously—neither alternative is acceptable.

Defendants complain about the large number of pleadings in this case. However,

Defendants’ own failure to promptly respond at all to several of Breach’s discovery requests

and orders of this Court has caused months of unnecessary litigation and wasted the parties’,

and this Court’s, time. This Court has the authority to order sanctions if a party or its

attorney “fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)(C). Based

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 3 of 9
4

on Defendants’ repeated failure to respond to orders of this Court, this Court will sanction

counsel for Defendants as set forth below.

Furthermore, Breach is entitled to discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, including information that appears reasonably

calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). However, Breach is not

entitled to discovery where (i) the information sought is unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient; (ii) Breach

has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; (iii) the

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Id. This Court has

thoroughly reviewed the numerous discovery requests, as well as the lengthy record in this

case.

A. Objections Related to Dr. Robbins

Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court, a party may serve on any other

party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33(a)(1). On October 29, 2007, Breach served Dr. Robbins with 24 paragraphs of

interrogatories, one of which contained numerous subparts. (Doc. # 187). Therefore, the

additional interrogatories served upon Dr. Robbins in Breach’s Supplemental Discovery

Request (Doc. # 315) exceeded the applicable limit, and this Court will not order Dr. Robbins

to respond to them.

With regard to the interrogatories propounded in Document Number 187, this Court

finds that many of the interrogatories are either not relevant within the definition of Rule

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 4 of 9
Dr. Robbin’s response to Interrogatory 2 should be limited to convictions of 1

crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

Due to misnumbering within the document, there are two interrogatories 2

numbered “10.” Dr. Robbins need only respond to the first Interrogatory 10.

5

26(b), unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery in this case, or the burden

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. However, this Court also

finds that some of the interrogatories are relevant under Rule 26(b), and that Breach is

entitled to a response to them. Therefore, this Court ORDERS Dr. Robbins to respond to

Document Number 187, Interrogatories 2, 10, 12-16, 19-20, 22, 24. 1 2

With regard to Breach’s Request for Production of Documents, the Court finds that

they are all not relevant within the definition of Rule 26(b), unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative of other discovery in this case, or the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Accordingly, this Court overrules Breach’s objections

pertaining to these requests.

Breach has also served Dr. Robbins with a series of Requests for Admissions.

However, many of these requests are not discoverable because they are not relevant within

the definition of Rule 26(b), unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery in this

case, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. On the

other hand, this Court findsthatsome of the requests are discoverable; therefore, Dr. Robbins

is ORDERED to respond to Document Number 187, Requests for Admissions 1-6, 9, 12, 22,

24-26, 31-41, 43.

B. Objections Related to Dr. Hobbs

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 5 of 9
Dr. Hobbs’ response to Interrogatory 2 should be limited to convictions of 3

crimes punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

With respect to Interrogatory 10, Dr. Hobbs should limit his response only to 4

Medical Malpractice and/or Medical Negligence cases in which a judgment was entered

against him and he was found liable.

With respect to Interrogatory 19, Dr. Hobbs should also specify the number of 5

hernia patients that were given surgical referrals, and their names, if possible.

6

As was the case with Dr. Robbins, Breach served Dr. Hobbs with an initial set of

interrogatories that met or exceeded his allotment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

33(a)(1). Accordingly, this Court will not order Dr. Hobbs to respond to any of the

interrogatories in Breach’s Supplemental Discovery Request (Doc. # 314).

As for the interrogatories propounded in Document Number 226, this Court again

finds that many of the interrogatories are either not relevant within the definition of Rule

26(b), unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery in this case, or the burden

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. In addition, many relevant

interrogatories were in fact answered by Dr. Hobbs notwithstanding his objections.

However, this Court also finds that some of the interrogatories that were not answered are

indeed relevant under Rule 26(b), and that Breach is entitled to a response to them.

Therefore, this Court ORDERS Dr. Hobbs to respond to Document Number 226,

Interrogatories 2, 8, 10, 12-16, 19, 20-21. 3 4 5

Breach has also served Dr. Hobbs with a series of Requests for Admissions.

However, many of these requests are not discoverable because they are not relevant within

the definition of Rule 26(b), unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery in this

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 6 of 9
7

case, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

However, this Court finds that some of the requests are discoverable; therefore, Dr. Hobbs

is ORDERED to respond to Document Number 226, Requests for Admissions 2, 5, 7-8, 14,

16-18, 22-30, 32-35, 38, 44-57.

In Document Number 649, Breach also objects that Judge Moorer wrongfully allowed

an improperly notarized affidavit into evidence (Doc. # 86-2). After an independent review

of Breach’s motion, the Magistrate Judge’s order, and Breach’s objection, the Court finds

that the Magistrate Judge’s order is neither clearly erroneous, nor contrary to law. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, this objection is due to be OVERRULED.

In Document Number 658, Breach objects to Judge Moorer’s Order (Doc. # 650)

denying Breach’s Motion to Strike (Doc. # 648) portions of an affidavit by Dr. Hobbs.

Breach argues that this affidavit should be stricken because it is allegedly contradictory with

prior sworn testimony from Dr. Hobbs. Breach cites several cases that stand for the

proposition that a court can disregard an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony from that

witness. See, e.g., McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1240 n.7 (11th

Cir. 2003). However, these cases do not support the argument that such affidavits should be

stricken from the record; rather, they simply state that a party cannot create a genuine issue

of material fact at summary judgment with an affidavit that contradicts previously given clear

answers to unambiguous questions which negate the existence of a genuine issue of material

fact. In other words, the law of this Circuit is that such a “sham affidavit” must be

disregarded for the purpose of determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 7 of 9
8

It is not the law of this Circuit that such an affidavit must be stricken. See id.; Van T. Junkins

and Assocs., Inc. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 657 (11th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, this

Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order is neither clearly erroneous, nor contrary to law.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Therefore, Breach’s objection to this order is due to be

OVERRULED.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED:

(1) As a sanction for Defendants’ repeated failure to comply with this Court’s

orders in this case, Paul McGee James, Jr. shall donate to the charity of his choice the

sum of $400.00, which consists of $200.00 per defendant who failed to respond, on or

before August 18, 2008. Immediately upon payment of this amount, James shall file with

this Court a written certification signed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

indicating that he has complied with this requirement. A copy of the receipt for the

donation shall be attached as an exhibit to this certification. It is further ORDERED that

James shall pay this fine himself and shall not seek to recover it either as an expense from

his clients or as a portion of any attorney fee he might negotiate as part of the settlement

of this action.

(2) Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 637) is SUSTAINED IN PART AND

OVERRULED IN PART. Defendant Dr. Robbins shall file a response to Plaintiff’s 

Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Admissions, For Production of Documents

to Defendants Under Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. # 187) as set forth above, on or before August

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 8 of 9
9

18, 2008.

(3) Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 635) is OVERRULED.

(4) Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 636) is SUSTAINED IN PART AND

OVERRULED IN PART. Defendant Dr. Hobbs shall file a response to Plaintiff’s Fourth

Set of Interrogatories (Doc. # 226) as set forth above, on or before August 18, 2008.

(5) Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 634) is OVERRULED.

(6) Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 649) is OVERRULED.

(7) Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 658) is OVERRULED.

(8) This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate action.

DONE this the 31 day of July, 2008. st

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01133-MEF-TFM Document 675 Filed 07/31/08 Page 9 of 9