Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KELVIN BOWMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:03cv177-MMP/WCS

LIEUTENANT T. COPELAND, 

SERGEANT C. MCKENZIE,

OFFICER L. MCDONALD,

and OFFICER M. SPEIGHTL,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, doc. 32, and Plaintiff's cross motion

for summary judgment, doc. 85, were denied. Docs. 93, 98. The issue of which

attorney is representing Defendants has now been settled. See docs. 100, 101. 

Defendants were directed to file a response to Plaintiff's motion, doc. 99, for

leave to conduct discovery prior to this case going to trial. Doc. 100. Defendants'

response objects on the basis that discovery is unnecessary because the special report

was filed, but there is no indication from either Defendants or Plaintiff that the discovery

sought at this time was covered in the special report. Additionally, Defendants object

Case 5:03-cv-00177-RS-WCS Document 103 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:03cv177-MMP/WCS

because the discovery is not addressed to a specific Defendant, but to all Defendants

and is "boiler-plate." Defendants contend that "Plaintiff should be required to match his

specific discovery requests with specific Defendants." Doc. 102. Defendants "reserve

the right to serve specific objections to specific requests" should Plaintiff be permitted to

proceed with his discovery. Id. 

Plaintiff will be required to re-draft his interrogatories and make his request to a

specific Defendant. It is possible that Plaintiff seeks general answers from each

Defendant, but it also appears that Plaintiff seeks specific answers that are,

presumably, within the knowledge of a particular Defendant. Plaintiff must direct the

Interrogatories to specific named Defendants. As for the request for production of

documents, the request may be responded to by any Defendant. Once a document is

produced, it is produced and it does not matter which Defendant does so.

Therefore, Defendants shall respond to the request for production as permitted

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall re-file his request for

Interrogatories and simultaneously demonstrate why the discovery is needed, the

relevance of each request, and explain how it differs from materials previously covered

in the special report process.

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED:

1. Ruling on Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct discovery, doc. 99, is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Case 5:03-cv-00177-RS-WCS Document 103 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:03cv177-MMP/WCS

2. Defendants shall have until March 23, 2006, in which to respond to the

request for production. Defendants shall simultaneously file a notice to the Court

indicating the manner in which a response to this discovery is provided.

3. Plaintiff shall have until March 23, 2006, in which to re-file his request for

discovery as it concerns the Interrogatories as explained above.

4. The Clerk of Court shall return this file to the undersigned no later than March

23, 2006.

DONE AND ORDERED on February 23, 2006.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00177-RS-WCS Document 103 Filed 02/23/06 Page 3 of 3