IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

 

JOHN D. COCKSHUTT, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-532 

Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

 

STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION & CORRECTION, 

et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

 OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff John D. Cockshutt, a state prisoner, alleges that his 

security level was increased based on a false conduct charge, denying 

him his rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment. This matter is now before the Court, with consent of the 

parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for consideration of 

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant Schmutz’s Response for Production of 

Documents and Request for Order (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel”), Doc. 

No. 60, in which plaintiff seeks to compel the production of documents 

from defendant Trooper Schmutz. Defendant Schmutz has not filed a 

response. 

 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 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, 

Case: 2:12-cv-00532-NMK Doc #: 69 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “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)). Relevance for 

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

186 F.R.D. 376, 383 (W.D. Tenn. 1999); 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). “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 argues that defendant Schmutz failed to produce any of 

the documents sought in plaintiff’s January 17, 2013 discovery 

request. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, p. 1. Plaintiff further 

argues that defendant Schmutz improperly asserted that the documents 

sought were privileged or that the documents were not in his 

possession. Id. at pp. 1-2. Plaintiff has not, however, provided the 

Court with a copy of his discovery request or any information 

regarding the documents sought. Under the circumstances, the Court 

cannot conclude that the documents plaintiff seeks to compel are 

relevant to his claims. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 60, is therefore DENIED. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00532-NMK Doc #: 69 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

February 28, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00532-NMK Doc #: 69 Filed: 02/28/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>