IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MARK EDWARD HURST,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-CV-1090

Judge Smith

vs. Magistrate Judge King

 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

AND CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Defendants to Supply to This Court and Plaintiff, the Names and

Addresses of the Board Members of the “Collegial Review Committee” at

the Time of Plaintiff’s Surgery Cancelation (“Motion to Compel”), Doc.

No. 26, and plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. No. 27. For

the following reasons, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part

and plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mark Hurst, a former state inmate, brings this civil

rights action alleging that he was denied medical care in

contravention of his constitutional rights when allegedly necessary

surgery was cancelled. The Complaint, Doc. No. 4, names as

defendants, inter alios, the “Collegial Review Committee” [“the

Committee”] as well as members of the Committee, who are otherwise

unidentified. Id. at 2. Attempted service on the unidentified

1

Case: 2:11-cv-01090-GCS-NMK Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
members of the Committee was returned unexecuted. See Doc. No. 12. 

 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to produce “the

Names and Addresses of the Board Members of the ‘Collegial Review

Committee’ at the time of Plaintiffs Surgery Cancelation [sic].” 

Motion to Compel, at 5.1 Defendants oppose plaintiff’s motion, taking

the position that the discovery sought is neither relevant to

plaintiff’s claims nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence because the “Collegial Review Committee was not

involved in the decision to cancel Plaintiff’s surgery.” Defendants’

Substantive Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 35, at

3. 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Standard 

Determining the proper scope of discovery falls within the broad

discretion of the trial court. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135

F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998). Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure authorizes a motion to compel discovery when a party fails

to provide a proper response to interrogatories under Rule 33 or

requests for production of documents under Rule 34. Rule 37(a)

expressly provides that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer,

or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or

respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “Although a plaintiff should not

be denied access to information necessary to establish [his] claim,

neither may a plaintiff be permitted ‘to go fishing and a trial court

1

Defendants initially opposed the motion on the basis that plaintiff had

not attempted to resolve the dispute prior to filing the Motion to Compel. 

The Court rejected that argument, Order, Doc. No. 34, and defendants have now

made substantive response to the Motion to Compel.

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01090-GCS-NMK Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is too broad

and oppressive.’” Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305

(6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Marshall v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 576

F.2d 588, 592 (5th Cir. 1978)). “The proponent of a motion to compel

discovery bears the initial burden of proving that the information

sought is relevant.” Martin v. Select Portfolio Serving Holding

Corp., No. 1:05-cv-273, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68779, at *2 (S.D. Ohio

Sept. 25, 2006) (citing Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186

F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.D.C. 1999)). 

B. Relevancy

Rule 26(b) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or

defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance for

discovery purposes is extremely broad. Miller v. Fed. Express Corp.,

186 F.R.D. 376, 383 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). “The scope of examination

permitted under Rule 26(b) is broader than that permitted at trial. 

The test is whether the line of interrogation is reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Mellon v.

Cooper–Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 500–01 (6th Cir. 1970) (citations

omitted). 

Plaintiff’s discovery request seeks the “names, work addresses,

and the home addresses of the Board Members of the ‘Collegial Review

Committee’ at the time of Plaintiff’s surgery cancellation.” Motion

to Compel, at 5. Because the Complaint, as noted supra, names the

Committee members as defendants in the action, information sufficient

to enable plaintiff to effect service of process on these defendants

3

Case: 2:11-cv-01090-GCS-NMK Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
is relevant. Defendants objected to the request on the basis of

relevancy and stated, further, “Without waiving said objection, the

‘Collegial Review Committee’ was not involved in the decision to

cancel Plaintiff’s surgery.” Defendants’ Substantive Response to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, at 3. Defendants support their position

with the Declaration of David C. Weil, M.D., in which Dr. Weil states

that it was his decision to cancel plaintiff’s surgery. Defendants’

Substantive Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Declaration of

David C. Weil, M.D., at ¶ 8. 

As an initial matter, the Court questions the propriety of

resisting discovery relevant to service of process by disputing the

merits of plaintiff’s claim.2 In any event, however, the exhibits

submitted in connection with plaintiff’s Motion to Compel suggest that

the Committee and its members may in fact been involved in the

decision to cancel plaintiff’s surgery. See Motion to Compel, Exhibit

P (“First, your surgery consult was sent to the collegial review

committee (Operations Support Center-formerly known as Central

Office). This committee had a conference with Dr. Weil on 3/4/11. A

determination was made to cancel surgery and advise you to sign up for

doctor sick call if pain persists.”), Exhibit N (indicating that

plaintiff’s surgery was cancelled on the same day that the Committee

conducted a conference with Dr. Weil), Exhibit R (indicating that the

Committee consulted with Dr. Weil about the decision to cancel

plaintiff’s surgery). At a minimum, the members of the Committee may

have personal knowledge of the conference with Dr. Weil and whether or

2

The Court notes that defendants have in fact filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment, Doc. No. 36.

4

Case: 2:11-cv-01090-GCS-NMK Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
not they were involved in the decision to cancel plaintiff’s surgery. 

 Identifying information relating to defendants and persons who

apparently possess personal knowledge of the events giving rise to

plaintiff’s claims is clearly relevant to the issues in the case and

falls within the ambit of discoverable information. Plaintiff is

therefore entitled to such information.

The Court is concerned, however, with plaintiff’s request for the

home addresses of the Committee members. If defendants are able to

provide to plaintiff information sufficient to enable him to effect

service of process on these individuals and to propound appropriate

discovery on them, the Court will not require that their home

addresses be divulged.

III. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff has filed a third motion to appoint counsel, Doc. No.

27. Again, because the action has not yet progressed to the point

that the Court is able to evaluate the merits of plaintiff’s claim,

the motion for appointment of counsel, Doc. No. 27, is DENIED without

prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. See Henry

v. City of Detroit Manpower Dept., 763 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1985); Reed

v. Craig, No. 1:11-cv-00719, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82049, at *2-3

(S.D. Ohio June 13, 2012). 

WHEREUPON, plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 26, is GRANTED

in part. Defendants are DIRECTED to provide to plaintiff, within

fourteen (14) days, identifying information regarding the members of

the Collegial Review Committee sufficient to enable plaintiff to

effect service of process and propound discovery on these individuals.

 Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. No. 27, is DENIED

5

Case: 2:11-cv-01090-GCS-NMK Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. 

September 13, 2012 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

6

Case: 2:11-cv-01090-GCS-NMK Doc #: 40 Filed: 09/13/12 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>