IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RAY SCOTT HEID, et al., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

Case No. 2:18-cv-311 

 v. Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

GARY MOHR, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Motion by Leave of Court to 

Compel Defendants to Provide Adequate Responses to Discovery Request (ECF No. 184 (the 

“Second Motion to Compel”)) and the Motion by Leave of Court to Supplement Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide Adequate Responses to Discovery Request (ECF No. 

216 (the “Third Motion to Compel”)). For the reasons stated herein, the Second Motion to 

Compel (ECF No. 184) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Third Motion 

to Compel (ECF No. 216) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

I. 

This case has been pending for nearly four years, and is one of several cases Plaintiffs 

have filed in this Court over the past thirteen years. See Heid, et al. v. Aderholt, et al., Case No. 

2:20-cv-901, ECF No. 62 at PAGEID ## 710-711 (summarizing Plaintiffs’ history of litigation). 

Here, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 9, 2018, and soon thereafter filed an Amended 

Complaint on June 15, 2018. (ECF Nos. 1, 19.) On November 30, 2018, the Court permitted 

Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint, which to date serves as the operative Complaint. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 1 of 28 PAGEID #: 3444
2 

(ECF No. 37.) On December 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Application for Injunctive Relief and 

Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 38.) The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Temporary Restraining Order on December 18, 2018. (ECF No. 42.) The Court held a two-day 

preliminary injunction hearing on January 11, 2019 and January 14, 2019. (ECF Nos. 58, 59.) 

During the hearing, Plaintiffs presented arguments, answered direct questioning from the Court, 

answered cross-examination from Defendants’ counsel, and conducted extensive crossexamination of certain Defendants and various witnesses. (Id.) On March 4, 2019, the Court 

denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 57.) 

Beginning in January 2020, Plaintiffs started serving various discovery requests upon 

Defendants. (See ECF No. 160 at PAGEID # 2483.) The parties met and conferred regarding 

those discovery requests throughout the first half of 2020. (Id.) On May 29, 2020, the Court 

ordered that discovery must be completed on or before July 30, 2020, but noted that “[i]f 

Defendants need additional time to complete discovery, the Court will entertain a motion for 

extension of time.” (ECF No. 130.) On July 28, 2020, the Court granted an extension of the 

discovery deadline until October 31, 2020. (ECF No. 135.) Then, in August 2020, the parties 

filed a number of discovery-related motions, including a motion for protective order (by 

Defendants), a motion to compel (by Plaintiffs), and a proposed deposition protocol (by 

Plaintiffs). (ECF Nos. 138, 140, 141.) The parties then briefed these issues (and others) 

throughout the second half of 2020. (ECF Nos. 143-145, 151-152, 154, 156.) On October 29, 

2020, the Court extended the discovery deadline until December 30, 2020. (ECF No. 155.) 

Then, on November 25, 2020, the Court ordered that it would “first resolve the pending 

discovery motions, and then will permit additional discovery if appropriate.” (ECF No. 158.) 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 2 of 28 PAGEID #: 3445
3 

On March 31, 2021, the Court issued an Opinion and Order on the discovery-related 

filings. (ECF No. 160.) Of note, the Court found that many of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests 

were impermissible, as they were: (a) “personal questions that are unrelated to Defendants[’] 

positions as Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”) employees but rather 

seek their personal opinions and perspectives” (hereafter, “Personal Belief Requests”); (b) 

“generalized in a manner such that it is impossible to either admit or deny” or “do not have a 

definitive answer and the varying responses are heavily context dependent” (hereafter, 

“Generalized or Hypothetical Requests”); or (c) sought confidential or irrelevant information, 

including but not limited to information that “is vital to the institutional security of all ODRC 

facilities and their operations” (hereafter, “Miscellaneous Requests”). 

The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and ordered that “discovery 

is limited to matters directly related to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the alleged withholding of 

purported religious materials, any alleged discrimination based on ODRC policies and 

regulations, and the specific actions performed by Defendants related to the allegations contained 

in Plaintiffs’ complaint.” (Id. at PAGEID # 2503.) The Court also found, however, that 

Defendants inexplicably failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ remaining discovery requests, so the 

Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel in part and ordered Defendants to respond. (Id. at 

PAGEID ## 2499-2502.) 

On June 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the (132-page) Second Motion to Compel, challenging 

Defendants’ responses to approximately 201 discovery requests. (ECF No. 184.) On July 21, 

2021, Defendants responded to the Second Motion to Compel, but only responded to the first 44 

pages, leaving the last 88 pages of the Second Motion to Compel without any opposition. (ECF 

No. 192.) Accordingly, on October 18, 2021, the Court directed Defendants to respond to the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 3 of 28 PAGEID #: 3446
4 

last 88 pages of the Second Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 209.) On October 20, 2021, 

Defendants filed a supplemental response to the last 88 pages of the Second Motion to Compel.1 

(ECF No. 211.) Then, on December 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the (86-page) Third Motion to 

Compel, challenging Defendants’ responses to approximately 135 discovery requests. (ECF No. 

216.) 

The Second Motion to Compel and Third Motion to Compel, which together constitute 

218 pages and address approximately 336 discovery requests, are both fully briefed and ripe for 

judicial review. (ECF Nos. 184, 192, 208, 211, 216-218.) The Court will discuss each of the 

motions in turn. 

 

1

 The Court notes that Defendants’ supplemental response to the last 88 pages of the Second 

Motion to Compel, which was prepared and filed in only two days, provides no guideposts to 

help orient a reader, and is instead a twenty (20) page list of responses, leaving it up to the Court 

to figure out which responses correspond to which requests. (ECF No. 211 at PAGEID ## 3093-

3112.) The Court is underwhelmed by Defendants’ unhelpful approach to their supplemental 

response – which they were not entitled to file without the Court’s order directing them to do so 

– especially given the Court’s prior comments regarding Defendants’ consistently insouciant 

behavior throughout discovery in this case. This reaction is only heightened by the fact that 

Defendants filed their supplemental response twelve (12) days before the Court-ordered 

deadline, which suggests to the Court that Defendants had ample time to draft their supplemental 

response in a more thoughtful manner, but they chose not to, prioritizing expediency over regard 

for the Court’s time and resources. 

Also, upon closer review, the Court notes Defendants’ near-universal disregard for Local 

Rule 26.1, which states in relevant part that “[p]arties responding or objecting to discovery 

requests shall quote each such interrogatory or request in full immediately preceding the 

statement of any answer, response, or objection thereto.” S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 26.1(a). The Court 

is mindful of the burden that this litigation imposes on Defendants and the oppressive discovery 

it has occasioned. But, that does not excuse Defendants from participating in the discovery 

process in compliance with the applicable rules. To this end, Plaintiffs seek sanctions associated 

with the subject briefing. (See ECF Nos. 184, 216.) The Court finds that Defendants’ actions do 

not rise to that extreme level at this juncture, but the Court nevertheless ADMONISHES 

Defendants that any further incumbrance of the discovery process may result in sanctions. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 4 of 28 PAGEID #: 3447
5 

II. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits a party to file a motion for an order 

compelling discovery if another party fails to respond to discovery requests, provided that the 

motion to compel includes a certification that the movant has, in good faith, conferred or 

attempted to confer with the party failing to respond to the requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). 

Here, the Court is satisfied that this prerequisite has been satisfied, as Plaintiffs have attached 

correspondence demonstrating their efforts to resolve the discovery disputes in lieu of the subject 

briefing. (See ECF No. 184-6 at PAGEID ## 2860-2871.)

Determining the scope of discovery is within the Court’s discretion. Bush v. Dictaphone 

Corp., 161 F.3d 363, 367 (6th Cir. 1998). Unless the court orders otherwise, the scope of 

discovery is that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(1). The Court can, and indeed must, limit the frequency or extent of discovery “if it 

determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be 

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) 

the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in 

the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” 

Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. Hodges, No. 1:15-CV-00568, 2019 WL 13044827, at 

*2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)). The Court also has discretion 

to limit the scope of discovery by issuing protective orders, for good cause shown, forbidding the 

requested discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 5 of 28 PAGEID #: 3448
6 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant parties the right to “obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(1); see also Siriano v. Goodman Mfg. Co., L.P., No. 2:14-CV-1131, 2015 WL 8259548, 

at *5 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2015). “Relevance is construed very broadly for discovery purposes.” 

Doe v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:16-CV-171, 2018 WL 1373868, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018) 

(emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Despite being construed broadly, the concept of 

relevance is not unlimited. Averett v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-1167, 2009 WL 

799638, at *2 (S.D. Ohio March 24, 2009). Indeed, “[t]o satisfy the discoverability standard, the 

information sought must have more than minimal relevance to the claims or defenses.” Doe, 

2018 WL 1373868 at *2 (citations omitted). Furthermore, when information is “negligibly 

relevant [or] minimally important in resolving the issues” this will not satisfy the standard. Id.

(citation omitted). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(6), the requesting party may challenge the 

sufficiency of an answer or objection to a request for admission. Under the Rule, “[u]nless the 

court finds an objection justified, it must order that an answer be served,” and “[o]n finding that 

an answer does not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is admitted 

or that an amended answer be served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). The requesting party bears the 

burden of demonstrating that the responding party’s answers or objections were insufficient. See 

Snyder v. Fleetwood RV, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1019, 2016 WL 339972, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 

2016). 

“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instruct district courts to limit discovery where 

its ‘burden or expense . . . 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 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 6 of 28 PAGEID #: 3449
7 

litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.’” Surles ex rel. 

Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting former Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)). This Court has previously held that “[t]hese factors are retained in 

revised Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), reflecting ‘their original place in defining the scope of 

discovery’” because “‘restoring proportionality’ is the touchstone of revised Rule 26(b)(1)’s 

scope of discovery provisions.” Siriano, 2015 WL 8259548, at *5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1)). In analyzing the extent of the burden on the producing party, the Court of Appeals for 

the Sixth Circuit “has held that limiting the scope of discovery is appropriate when compliance 

‘would prove unduly burdensome,’ not merely expensive or time-consuming.” Id. (citing Surles, 

575 F.3d at 305) (emphasis in original). 

III. 

Applying the foregoing authority, the Court now considers in turn the pending motions, 

which as discussed above implicate approximately 336 discovery requests. As a preliminary 

matter, the Court notes that an overwhelming majority of the discovery requests at issue are 

plainly inappropriate or beyond the scope of permissible discovery which the Court previously 

set forth in its March 31, 2021 Opinion and Order: 

[D]iscovery is limited to matters directly related to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the 

alleged withholding of purported religious materials, any alleged discrimination 

based on ODRC policies and regulations, and the specific actions performed by 

Defendants related to the allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

(ECF No. 160 at PAGEID # 2503.) Many discovery requests also improperly seek duplicative 

evidence that was produced and discussed at great length during the two-day preliminary 

injunction hearing. Accordingly, it is neither practical nor necessary for the Court to discuss 

each of the 336 discovery requests at issue. While the Court will discuss all of Plaintiffs’ 

discovery requests in general terms, the Court will only address individual requests as necessary. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 7 of 28 PAGEID #: 3450
8 

A. Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 184) 

1. Defendant Norris’ responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories 

The first subject of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel is Defendant Norris, as 

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Norris improperly answered seventeen (17) interrogatories. (ECF 

No. 184 at PAGEID ## 2603-2618.) Generally speaking, the interrogatories at issue seek 

information related to the ODRC’s STG department; the religious and gang affiliations of 

inmates; “religious volunteer visitors” in ODRC institutions; and the incendiary nature of 

swastikas. (Id.; see also ECF No. 184-3 at PAGEID ## 2743-2747.) Defendant Norris 

responded with various boilerplate objections, including that the requests were “[v]ague, 

ambiguous, unlimited in time, scope or subject, overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, 

and call[] for unbounded discovery,” but also answered every single request over his objections. 

(See ECF No. 184-3 at PAGEID ## 2743-2747.) 

The Court finds Defendant Norris’ responses to the subject interrogatories to be 

sufficient, and his objections appropriate. First, the Court agrees with Defendant Norris that 

most of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories were inappropriately vague and overly broad, and also agrees 

with Defendant Norris that many interrogatories seek information beyond Defendant Norris’ 

professional background and experience and beyond the scope of discovery set forth in the 

Court’s prior decision. (ECF No. 160 at PAGEID # 2503.) To this end, the Court rejects 

Plaintiffs’ argument (echoed dozens of times throughout the subject briefing) that Defendants, 

simply due to their status as ODRC employees, are required to produce information that is within 

the ODRC’s control pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1). (See, e.g., ECF No. 

184 at PAGEID ## 2606-2607 (“Defendant is required by law to furnish the information 

available from sources under the [ODRC’s] control . . . Defendant could have contacted the 

ODRC’s department of Mental Health and requested the information from any of the numerous 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 8 of 28 PAGEID #: 3451
9 

psychiatrists/psychologists employed by the ODRC.”), PAGEID # 2608 (“Defendant could have 

contacted the ODRC’s interdepartmental Religious Services office and spoke to the Religious 

Service Administrator, Mike Davis, to obtain the information.”).) 

Such arguments are not well taken, because the ODRC is not a named Defendant in this 

action, and Plaintiffs have not served any discovery requests on the ODRC. Under Rule 

33(b)(1), interrogatories must be answered “by the party to whom they are directed” or “if that 

party is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency, 

by any officer or agent, who must furnish the information available to the party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(b)(1). Here, the named Defendants are all individuals. The Court, therefore, rejects 

Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendants are “required by law to furnish the information available 

from sources under the [ODRC’s] control.” (ECF No. 184 at PAGEID # 2606.) The ODRC is 

not the party to whom the discovery requests are directed; Defendants do not have any duty to 

produce discovery beyond that which is within their own individual custody or control.2

 This is 

especially true here, where Plaintiffs affirmatively acknowledge that they knew how to seek such 

information for themselves, and from whom, but they chose not to use the discovery tools 

2

 The Court notes that in the two cases upon which Plaintiffs relied in support of their argument, 

the parties responding to discovery were an association and a corporation, and were therefore 

subject to Rule 33(b)(1)(B). See Int’l Assoc. of Machinists, Dist. 169 v. Amana Refrigeration, 

Inc., 90 F.R.D. 1, 2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 1978) (“Rule 33(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

requires the plaintiff, as an “ * * * association, * * * ” to answer “ * * * by any officer or agent, 

who shall furnish such information as is available to the party (i. e., to the labor organization). * 

* * ”) (emphasis added); Firemen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Erie-Lackawanna R. Co., 35 F.R.D. 297, 299 

(N.D. Ohio 1964) (“Plaintiff is here standing in the shoes of the F. E. Myers & Bros. 

Company and will require the testimony of its insured-assignor in order to prove its claim. It is 

this Court's opinion that under such circumstances plaintiff is obliged to secure such information 

from its assignor as it can, in order to make response to defendant's interrogatories.”) (emphasis 

added). Here, by contrast, the individual Defendants to whom discovery was served are only 

subject to Rule 33(b)(1)(A). Doe v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., No. 3:20-CV01023, 2021 WL 5882653, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 13, 2021) (“Rule 33(b)(1)(B) extends only to 

corporate or governmental defendants, not to individuals.”). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 9 of 28 PAGEID #: 3452
10 

available to them to do so. Plaintiffs instead ask the Court to compel Defendants to dig up such 

information for them, but the Court will not countenance Plaintiffs’ strategic use of 

interrogatories to this end. Simply put, Plaintiffs are not permitted to force Defendants to 

conduct fishing expeditions (on Plaintiffs’ behalf) into every nook and cranny of the ODRC. 

The Court also has no patience for Plaintiffs’ transparent effort to relitigate the 

preliminary injunction hearing from January 2019. To this end, the Court agrees with 

Defendants that “Plaintiffs already had more than an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery 

at the January 11, 2019 and January 14, 2019 preliminary injunction hearing of this matter 

during which they exhaustively questioned Defendants Gillum and Graves, along with other 

prison officials, about the limited issues remaining in this case[.]” (ECF No. 192 at PAGEID # 

2928.) Specifically, the transcript from the two-day preliminary injunction hearing (which totals 

more than 300 pages) confirms that Plaintiffs elicited testimony regarding, and extensively 

discussed, the “incendiary” nature of the swastika, its use by (and, accordingly, association with) 

white supremacists in the prison context, and the context-specific nature of symbols that may be 

considered security threats by the ODRC. (See ECF Nos. 58, 59.) 

Against that backdrop, Plaintiffs nevertheless asked Defendant Norris to “identify the 

reasons” why “all the books in ODRC libraries . . . with the swastika symbol on their front 

covers” are not considered security threats. (See ECF No. 184-3 at PAGEID # 2747.) In 

response, Defendant Norris properly objected to Plaintiffs’ request, and nevertheless responded 

that books permitted by the ODRC “neither espouse, endorse, support, promote, nor advocate 

white supremacy, white separatism, and/or Nazi beliefs.” (Id.) Defendant Norris’ answers to 

these interrogatories are entirely consistent with the evidence from the preliminary injunction 

hearing. Accordingly, the Court will not entertain Plaintiffs’ attempts to compel further 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 10 of 28 PAGEID #: 3453
11 

duplicative responses. For these reasons, having considered all of the interrogatories at issue, the 

Court finds that the requests are outside the scope of discovery for this case, duplicative, and 

only serve to harass Defendant Norris. Accordingly, the Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 

184) is DENIED as to Defendant Norris’ responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. 

2. Defendant Graves’ response to Plaintiffs’ request for admissions 

Plaintiffs next challenge Defendant Graves’ response to a request for admission that reads 

as follows: “You oppose Christianity.” (ECF No. 184 at PAGEID # 2618.) This is obviously an 

impermissible Personal Belief Request, which this Court already has already found is irrelevant 

to Plaintiffs’ claims and only serves to harass Defendant Graves. (See ECF No. 160 at PAGEID 

# 2490.) Accordingly, the Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 184) is DENIED as to 

Defendant Graves’ response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions, Request No. 6.

3. Defendants Gobel, Gillum, Norris, Clark, and Dolan’s responses to Plaintiff’s 

requests for admissions 

Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants Gobel, Gillum, Norris, Clark, and Dolan provided 

“evasive” and “insufficient” responses to approximately one hundred and seven (107) requests 

for admissions. (ECF No. 184 at PAGEID ## 2619-2677.) The Court will analyze the requests 

to Defendant Gobel first, and then will discuss the remaining requests together, as they all suffer 

from the same deficiencies. 

Generally speaking, Plaintiffs’ requests for admissions to Defendant Gobel seek: (i) 

admissions related to the ODRC conduct report protocol as applied to Plaintiffs in October 2015, 

(ii) legal interpretations of ODRC policies, and (iii) Defendant Gobel’s personal beliefs 

regarding how the ODRC views “the Aryan ethnicity,” what symbols are, and regarding how the 

ODRC views “racially conscious white inmates.” (Id. at PAGEID ## 2619-2615.) These 

requests are improper, however, as they do not serve the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 11 of 28 PAGEID #: 3454
12 

Procedure 36. See Hendricks v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:11-CV-40, 2012 WL 

2075317, at *5 (S.D. Ohio June 8, 2012) (“Rule 36 is not a discovery device, and its proper use 

is as a means of avoiding the necessity of proving issues which the requesting party will 

doubtless be able to prove.”) (quoting Misco, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 784 F.2d 198, 205 

(6th Cir. 1986)); Cogent Sols. Grp., LLC v. Brown, No. 2:12-CV-665, 2013 WL 12121522, at *3 

(S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2013) (“Requests for admissions . . . differ from other discovery tools 

contemplated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 36 is not a discovery device, and 

its proper use is as a means of avoiding the necessity of proving issues which the requesting 

party will doubtless be able to prove.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). These 

requests also are beyond the scope of discovery set forth in the Court’s prior decision. (ECF No. 

160 at PAGEID # 2503.) 

While certain of Plaintiffs’ requests qualify as Personal Belief Requests or Legal 

Conclusion Requests which are plainly outside the realm of permissible discovery, Plaintiffs’ 

remaining requests are conspicuously crafted for purposes of discovery rather than to eliminate 

the necessity of proving facts that are not in substantial dispute. Such requests are improper. 

Cogent Sols. Grp., LLC, 2013 WL 12121522, at *3 (“Courts in this Circuit have also found that 

‘[a]dmissions sought under Rule 36 should not be of such great number and broad scope as to 

cover all the issues of a complex case.’ Nor are they an appropriate means by which to seek 

admissions of legal conclusion or opinion.”) (quoting Lantz v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 37 F.R.D. 69, 

69 (N.D. Ohio 1963)); see also Hendricks, 2012 WL 2075317, at *5 (denying a motion to 

compel regarding a request for admission that “does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 36(a) and more closely resembles an attempt to utilize Rule 36 as a general discovery 

device.”); Quicken Loans v. Jolly, No. 2:07-cv-13143, 2007 WL 3408551, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 12 of 28 PAGEID #: 3455
13 

Nov. 15, 2007) (“[R]equests for admissions as to central facts in dispute are beyond the proper 

scope of the rule. Such requests have consistently been held improper.”) (quoting Pickens v. 

Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 413 F.2d 1390, 1393 (5th Cir. 1969) (collecting cases)). 

The Court finds the same problems with the requests for admissions directed to 

Defendants Gillum, Norris, Clark, and Dolan. (See ECF No. 184 at PAGEID ## 2625-2677.) 

These other requests for admissions are also well outside the bounds of Rule 36, as Plaintiffs 

continued to assert Personal Belief Requests,3 Generalized or Hypothetical Requests,4 and Legal 

Conclusion Requests5 that serve no purpose other than to harass Defendants. Many of Plaintiffs’ 

other requests also plainly appear to be crafted to relitigate the preliminary injunction from 

January 2019, which as discussed above is inappropriate insofar as Plaintiffs seek to relitigate the 

“incendiary” nature of the swastika, its use by (and, accordingly, association with) white 

supremacists in the prison context, and the context-specific nature of symbols that may be 

3

 For example, Plaintiffs asked Defendant Gillum to admit that “[y]ou believe that White people 

who desire to remain racially pure are white supremacists or otherwise STG affiliates,” 

Defendant Norris to admit that “[i]t is your opinion that the Swastika has an appeal to AryanAmericans,” Defendant Clark to admit that “[a]n opinion that advocates violence is not the same 

as steeling a person to act out violence,” and Defendant Dolan to admit that “American was 

founded by and intended to be a nation for White people.” (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 184, 184-1 at 

PAGEID ## 2633, 2639, 2651, 2277.) The Court notes that this list of examples is not

exhaustive, as many of Plaintiffs’ requests constituted improper Personal Belief Requests. 

4

 For example, Plaintiffs asked Defendant Gillum to admit that “[t]he Rastafarian religion 

appeals to black people,” Defendant Norris to admit that “[t]oday people recognize many 

different forms of Christianity,” Defendant Clark to admit that "[s]ymbols that are considered 

STG identifiers are so labelled because they pose a risk to the safety and security of the 

institution(s),” and Defendant Dolan to admit that “[t]he publication Mein Kampf has incited 

others to cause violence within ODRC.” (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 184, 184-1 at PAGEID ## 2628, 

2634, 2653, 2658.) The Court again notes that this list of examples is not exhaustive. 

5

 For example, Plaintiffs asked Defendant Clark to admit that “the STG procedure governed by 

policy 310-SEC-12 [can] be arbitrarily used to unconstitutionally target and suppress religious 

groups that hold ideologies prison officials find contrary to their political left wing extremist 

agenda of mongrelization.” (See, e.g., ECF No. 184-1 at PAGEID # 2655.) The Court again 

notes that this example is not exhaustive. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 13 of 28 PAGEID #: 3456
14 

considered security threats by the ODRC, including but not limited to the six-pointed star. (See 

ECF Nos. 58, 59.) And again, these requests are outside the scope of discovery as set forth by 

the Court’s prior decision. (ECF No. 160 at PAGEID # 2503.) 

Beyond these deficiencies, the Court also finds that Plaintiffs’ requests are either 

completely irrelevant or improperly drafted as vehicles for discovery, placing them outside the 

bounds of Rule 36. Cogent Sols. Grp., LLC, 2013 WL 12121522, at *3. As a final deficiency, 

several more of Defendants’ requests are improperly served on Defendants Gobel, Gillum, 

Norris, Clark, and Dolan as the information sought is outside the scope of the Defendants’ 

employment with the ODRC – or in the case of Defendant Dolan, who no longer works for the 

ODRC, beyond his personal knowledge. To this end, the Court is satisfied with Defendants’ 

attestations that they made reasonable efforts to respond to Plaintiffs’ requests where 

appropriate. (See, e.g., ECF No. 184-5 at PAGEID ## 2798-2810 (Defendant Dolan’s response 

that “he lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny [the requests] after making 

a reasonable inquiry and the information he knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable 

him to admit or deny.”).) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) (“The answering party may assert lack of 

knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it 

has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is 

insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.”). 

As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants’ 

responses were insufficient. Snyder, 2016 WL 339972, at *7 (“As the movant, Ms. Snyder bears 

the burden of demonstrating that Fleetwood's answers or objections were insufficient.”). 

Accordingly, the Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 184) is DENIED as to Defendants Gobel, 

Gillum, Norris, Clark, and Dolan’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 14 of 28 PAGEID #: 3457
15 

4. Defendant Clark’s responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories 

Plaintiffs’ next argument is that Defendant Clark provided “insufficient” responses to 

twenty-five interrogatories. (ECF No. 184-1 at PAGEID ## 2677-2695.) Generally speaking, 

the interrogatories at issue seek various definitions and statistical information, and seek 

information to challenge that certain literature has resulted in violence. (Id.; see also ECF No. 

184-5 at PAGEID ## 2817-2821.) In response to these interrogatories, Defendant Clark 

provided a number of objections, but nevertheless provided answers where appropriate. (See

ECF No. ECF No. 184 at PAGEID ## 2824-2834.) 

Upon review of Defendant Clark’s responses and objections, the Court will not compel 

Defendant Clark to revisit any of the interrogatories. Defendant Clark noted that he “is no longer 

employed by ODRC,” and thus was limited to his memory for purposes of responding to the 

interrogatories. (Id.) That obstacle notwithstanding, Defendant Clark still appears to have made 

reasonable inquiries in an attempt to respond to the interrogatories, and repeatedly invoked 

Defendant Graves’ testimony from the preliminary injunction hearing, specifically that he had 

seen “violence escalate, or potential violence escalate, from inmates having symbols such as 

swastikas.” (Id.; see also ECF No. 58 at PAGEID # 1485.) Beyond the responses Defendant 

Clark provided, the Court finds his objections to be well taken and will not compel him to 

respond to irrelevant Plaintiffs’ Personal Belief Requests (including, for example, interrogatories 

which ask him to define certain words) and Plaintiffs’ other interrogatories which only serve to 

harass Defendant Clark. Accordingly, the Second Motion to Compel (ECF No. 184) is DENIED

as to Defendant Clark’s responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. 

5. Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs’ requests for the production of documents 

Plaintiffs’ final argument in the Second Motion to Compel is that Defendants provided 

“insufficient” responses to fifty-one (51) requests for the production of documents (“RFPs”). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 15 of 28 PAGEID #: 3458
16 

(ECF No. 184 at PAGEID ## 2695-2725.) With limited exceptions, however, the Court finds 

that Plaintiffs’ RFPs exceed the bounds of permissible discovery, as Plaintiffs again submitted 

impermissible Generalized Requests6

 and requests for information that is plainly protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or the work product privileges.7 

Beyond these facially impermissible requests, Plaintiffs also sought a litany of “statistical 

data” regarding various racial and religious groups, to which Defendants responded that the 

“ODRC maintains no such statistical records in its possession, custody or control.” (See ECF 

No. 184-6 at PAGEID ## 2844-2848, 2851-2852 (Request Nos. 23, 26-27, 34-36, 38-39, 50-

55).) To this end, Defendants cannot produce documents which do not exist. Tolliver v. Liberty 

Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 2:06-CV-00904, 2008 WL 4951792, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 17, 2008) (“A 

party cannot be compelled to produce documents which do not exist or which it does not possess 

or control.”) (collecting cases). But even where such statistical data may exist, the Court agrees 

with Defendants that inmates’ personal information is confidential and it would be unduly 

burdensome for Defendants to account for “every single inmate” over the relevant time period. 

(See ECF No. 211 at PAGEID ## 3103-3107, 3110-3112 (Request Nos. 8-28, 43-44, 50, 52-55).) 

The Court also notes that many of Plaintiffs’ requests are simply irrelevant, as they seek 

the production of statistical information regarding groups of people or religions which have not 

been classified as STGs, including (in no particular order) Judaism, Black Hebrew Israelites, the 

6

 For example, Plaintiffs sought “statistical data of percentage of White inmates vis-à-vis black 

inmates who have ‘refused lock’ (check-in) in violation of rule 5120-9-06(C)(23) at RCI during 

2015 to 2018 AD, as may be maintained under . . . .” (See, e.g., ECF No. 184-2 at PAGEID # 

2703.) The Court notes that this is not exhaustive of Plaintiffs’ Generalized Requests. 

7

 For example, Plaintiffs requested “communications from legal services to RCI religious 

personnel regarding the removal of Christian Separatist Church Society (CSCS) religious 

materials from the chapel between April 2015 and September 2015 AD.” (See, e.g., ECF No. 

184-2 at PAGEID # 2703.) The Court again notes that this example is not exhaustive. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 16 of 28 PAGEID #: 3459
17 

Nation of Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Moorish Science Temple of American, Muslims, 

Rastafarians, Spanish Catholics, the African Cultural Organization, the NAACP, white inmates, 

black inmates, minority inmates. (See generally ECF No. 184-6 at PAGEID ## 2695-2725.) 

Plaintiffs argue that such information is necessary to support thier RLUIPA claim, but the Court 

disagrees. Plaintiffs do not seek evidence of alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ request to 

practice Christian Separatism. They seek a complete accounting of “violence occurring at all 

level-3 institutions” in the State of Ohio and the conduct reports associated with such violence. 

Such requests are too far astray from the factual or legal issues in this case, and are again beyond 

the scope of discovery as set forth by the Court’s prior decision. (ECF No. 160 at PAGEID # 

2503.) 

This is not to say, however, that all of Plaintiffs’ RFPs are impermissible. Indeed, 

Defendants concede that six RFPS – specifically, Request Nos. 4-7, 37, and 45 – are relevant and 

seek information that may exist, and Defendants state over objections that they will produce the 

requested documents to the extent they exist and are not protected by either the attorneyclient/work product privileges and/or the prison’s confidential security protocols. (See ECF No. 

184-6 at PAGEID ## 2839-2840, 2847, 2850.) It is unclear to the Court whether Defendants 

have produced any documents in response to these RFPs. Accordingly, for the sake of clarity, 

the Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 216) is GRANTED IN PART as to Request Nos. 4-7, 

37, and 45 of Plaintiffs’ RFPs, and DENIED IN PART as to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ RFPs. 

Accordingly, having considered all of the discovery requests at issue, the Second Motion 

to Compel (ECF No. 184) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to Defendants’ 

responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents.

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 17 of 28 PAGEID #: 3460
18 

B. Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 216) 

1. Defendant Graves’ responses to Plaintiff Heid’s interrogatories 

Plaintiffs’ first argument in the Third Motion to Compel is that Defendant Graves 

provided “evasive” responses to twenty-three (23) interrogatories. (ECF No. 216 at PAGEID ## 

3130-3149.) Generally speaking, the interrogatories at issue seek statistical information, legal 

opinions, explanations regarding the ODRC’s view of certain symbols (including the swastika) 

and certain types of people, and explanations regarding the motivating factors of actions related 

to Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id.; see also ECF No. 216-1.) In response to these interrogatories, 

Defendant Graves provided a number of objections, but nevertheless provided answers where 

appropriate. (See ECF No. 216-1.) 

Upon review of all of Defendant Graves’ responses and objections, the Court will not 

compel Defendant Graves to revisit any of the interrogatories. The Court is satisfied with his 

responses to nearly all of the interrogatories, and finds that although Defendant Graves was not 

responsive to Request Nos. 19-21, those requests are duplicative of Plaintiffs’ cross-examination 

of Defendant Graves during the January 11, 2021 preliminary injunction hearing. Specifically, 

while Request Nos. 19-21 seek information regarding “the decision to ascribe Plaintiffs as an 

STG affiliate,” Defendant Graves already provided extensive testimony, under oath, on these 

issues. (See ECF No. 58 at PAGEID ## 1470-1478.) During the preliminary injunction hearing, 

Defendant Graves explained the ODRC’s protocol for identifying STG affiliates, and testified 

that Plaintiff Damron was identified as an STG affiliate following an interview, during which 

Plaintiff Damron “probably told [Defendant Graves] he did believe in separatism,” and following 

a tattoo check which identified STG symbols. (Id. at PAGEID # 1475.) Defendant Graves also 

testified that Plaintiff Heid was identified as an STG affiliate because he “pretty much admitted . 

. . the same thing that [Plaintiff] Damron did,” and because a tattoo check revealed STG 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 18 of 28 PAGEID #: 3461
19 

identifiers on his hand. (Id. at PAGEID # 1478.) Because Defendant Graves already has 

addressed both the protocol and motivations behind “the decision to ascribe Plaintiffs as an STG 

affiliate,” the Court need not compel further responses to Request Nos. 19-21. 

The parties also dispute the burden associated with responding to Request No. 16, which 

asks Defendant Graves to “[i]dentify any White adherents of the Hindu faith within ODRC 

between 2014-2018AD.” (ECF No. 216 at PAGEID # 3141; ECF No. 218 at PAGEID ## 3377-

3378; ECF No. 221 at PAGEID ## 3406-3407.) Upon review of the briefing, the Court finds 

that Defendant Graves has met his burden of demonstrating that responding to Request No. 16 

would be unduly burdensome, as doing so would require Defendant Graves to “cull through 

hundreds of thousands of inmate records between 2014-2018 and not only determine who among 

more than 250,000 inmates self-identified as [Hindu], but also who among them also selfidentified as being a member of a particular race.” (ECF No. 218 at PAGEID # 3378.) This is 

an unreasonable demand of Defendant Graves and not proportional to the needs of this case, 

especially given the minimal (if any) benefit that would result. 

Accordingly, the Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 216) is DENIED as to Defendant 

Graves’ responses to Plaintiff Heid’s Interrogatories. 

2. Defendant Dolan’s responses to Plaintiff Heid’s interrogatories 

Plaintiffs also argue that Defendant Dolan provided “evasive” responses to twenty-two 

(22) interrogatories. (ECF No. 216 at PAGEID ## 3149-3164.) Generally speaking, the 

interrogatories at issue seek information related to various screening decisions and the security 

concerns and/or measures associated with various groups, including white separatists, and 

various symbols, including the swastika. (Id.) In response to these interrogatories, Defendant 

Dolan provided a number of objections, but nevertheless provided answers to the best of his 

memory. (See ECF No. 216-2.) As Defendant Dolan noted, however, he “is no longer employed 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 19 of 28 PAGEID #: 3462
20 

by ODRC” and accordingly was limited to his memory for purposes of responding. (Id.) The 

Court notes, however, that Defendant Dolan repeatedly responded that “he does recall that the 

Publication Screening Committee voted to exclude [the publications at issue in this lawsuit] 

because they were inflammatory, explicitly advocated for the use of violence to systemically 

and. persistently suppress doctrines with which they disagreed, were not conducive to 

rehabilitation, and were likely to lead to violence.” (Id.) In the subject briefing, Plaintiffs 

repeatedly characterize Defendant Dolan’s response as “a blatant lie and misrepresentation,” and 

turn away from the discovery dispute to argue the merits of their claims. (See ECF No. 216 at 

PAGEID ## 3149-3164.) The merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, however, are not at issue here, as the 

Court is instead tasked with determining whether Defendant Dolan’s responses were sufficient. 

And here the Court finds that Defendant Dolan’s responses were sufficient, even if Plaintiff may 

not like them. Accordingly, the Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 216) is DENIED as to 

Defendant Dolan’s responses to Plaintiff Heid’s Interrogatories. 

3. Defendant Williams’ responses to Plaintiff Heid’s interrogatories 

Plaintiffs next argue that Defendant Williams provided “evasive” responses to sixteen 

(16) interrogatories. (ECF No. 216 at PAGEID ## 3164-3173.) Generally speaking, the 

interrogatories at issue seek information related to religious CDs, certain literature within the 

ODRC library network, the definitions of various terms, and ODRC protocol regarding 

swastikas. (Id.) Like the other Defendants, Defendant Williams asserted a number of objections, 

but nevertheless answered Plaintiff Heid’s interrogatories to the extent she could. (See ECF No. 

216-3.) To this end, the Court agrees that most of Plaintiff Heid’s interrogatories were 

improperly submitted to Defendant Williams, as she correctly noted that she “is not an attorney 

or the Religious Services Administrator, nor is she the [Deputy Warden of Special Services] or 

the STG Coordinator,” and therefore was not equipped to answer a majority of Plaintiff Heid’s 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 20 of 28 PAGEID #: 3463
21 

interrogatories. (Id.) Because Defendant Williams served as the Deputy Warden of Special 

Services from 2011-2016, she was able to adequately respond to some of Plaintiffs’ inquiries to 

the extent she had personal knowledge. (Id.) 

Beyond Defendant Williams’ responses, the Court also finds her objections to be well 

taken and will not compel her to respond to irrelevant Personal Belief Requests (including, for 

example, interrogatories which ask her to define certain words) or Legal Conclusions Requests 

(including, for example, interrogatories which ask her to identify what constitutes “religious 

exercise” and/or the infringement of Constitutional rights) which serve no purpose other than to 

harass her. Accordingly, the Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 216) is DENIED as to 

Defendant Williams’ responses to Plaintiff Heid’s Interrogatories.

4. Defendants Norris and Gobel’s responses to Plaintiff Heid’s interrogatories 

Plaintiffs next argue that Defendant Norris provided “evasive” and “completely 

irresponsive” answers to twenty-four (24) interrogatories, and that Defendant Gobel has “failed 

to provide any response” to twenty-five (25) interrogatories. (ECF No. 216 at PAGEID ## 3173-

3193.) With regard to Defendant Gobel’s interrogatories, Defendants concede that they cannot 

find evidence that they served Defendant Gobel’s responses to Plaintiffs, and they state that 

“[u]ntil now [they] had not been apprised that Mr. Gobel’s interrogatory responses had not been 

received by Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 218 at PAGEID # 3388.) Regardless, Defendants indicate that 

“in case Plaintiffs did not previously receive copies of Mr. Gobel’s executed responses, 

[Defendants] will have them reissued.” (Id.)

 8

8

 In their Reply brief, Plaintiffs take issue with Defendants’ position that they “had not been 

apprised,” and Plaintiffs correctly point to a meet and confer letter, dated June 16, 2021, in which 

Plaintiffs wrote that “[t]o date no responses were provided regarding Interrogatories sent to 

Defendant Gobel.” (ECF No. 221 at PAGEID # 3415 (citing ECF No. 216-6 at PAGEID # 

3326).) Plaintiffs also state that “[s]imply put, defense counsel is a liar and the Truth is not in 

her.” (ECF No. 221 at PAGEID # 3415.) Plaintiffs already have been warned by the Court 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 21 of 28 PAGEID #: 3464
22 

Upon closer review of Defendant Norris’ responses and objections, the Court believes 

that Defendant Norris only properly responded to Request Nos. 1-4, and that Defendant Norris’ 

responses to Request Nos. 5-25 are instead responsive to the interrogatories directed to 

Defendant Gobel, as summarized below: 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Norris: 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Gobel: 

Defendant Norris’ 

response: 

Request No. 5: Identify any 

security concern between 

2012-2018 AD caused to the 

ODRC by the Plaintiffs’ 

individual use to the swastika. 

Request No. 5: Describe why 

you found both words “Blood 

and Honor” and the symbols 

of lightning bolts was used in 

a White Supremacy context 

by Plaintiff Heid. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: In a prison, use of 

the swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 6: Identify any 

instance between 2012-

present where Plaintiffs have 

used the swastika to violate 

any section of AR 5120-9-37 

(B)(1-5). (Please note, this 

request is asking for an 

instance in which the 

Plaintiffs specifically used the 

swastika for one of those 

purposes; not the instance in 

which ODRC officials have 

assigned the Plaintiffs’ use of 

the swastika to one of those 

purposes for simply using the 

swastika.). 

Request No. 6: Describe why 

you found Plaintiff Heid's 

ethno-religious use of the 

swastika, the words “Blood 

and Honor,” the Roman 

Salute, and the lightning bolts 

warranted a Rule 17 

conviction. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: In a prison, use of 

the swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 7: Identify any 

security concern within 

ODRC between 2012-2018 

AD caused by the use of 

library books which display 

the swastika. 

Request No. 7: Describe why 

you did not believe Plaintiff 

Heid’s use of the swastika, 

the words 'Blood and Honor,' 

the Roman Salute, and the 

lightning bolts were part of 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: In a prison, use of 

the swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

about their inflammatory language and unwarranted personal attacks. (See ECF No. 160 at 

PAGEID ## 2504-2505.) The Court therefore CAUTIONS Plaintiffs, for the last time, that 

future ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated, and may subject Plaintiffs to sanctions. See S.D. 

Ohio Civ. R. Introductory Statement on Civility (“An opposing litigant, a lawyer who represents 

that litigant, or a Judge who decides an issue has not thereby forfeited the right to be treated with 

common courtesy.”). 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 22 of 28 PAGEID #: 3465
23 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Norris: 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Gobel: 

Defendant Norris’ 

response: 

his ethno-religious 

expressions. 

Request No. 8: Identify how 

long the books, as identified 

in Plaintiffs’ exhibit-198, 

have been made available in 

the RCI main library. 

Request No. 8: Describe any 

context within ODRC where 

a White person can use the 

swastika, the words “Blood 

and Honor,” the Roman 

Salute, and the lightning bolts 

as part of their culture 

without being classified as an 

STG affiliate or part of an 

unauthorized group. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: In a prison, use of 

the swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 9: Identify any 

security concern within 

ODRC between 2012-2018 

AD caused by Plaintiffs’ use 

of “Mein Kampf: The Ford 

Translation.” 

Request No. 9: Describe a 

scenario within ODRC where 

an Aryan American person 

can use the swastika, the 

words “Blood and Honor,” 

the Roman Salute, and the 

lightning bolts in an ethnic 

context without being 

classified as an STG affiliate 

or part of an unauthorized 

group. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: In a prison, use of 

the swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 10: Identify any 

Hispanic gangs profiled 

within ODRC. 

Request No. 10: Describe a 

scenario within ODRC where 

an Aryan American person 

can use the swastika, the 

words “Blood and Honor,” 

the Roman Salute, and the 

lightning bolts in a religious 

context without being 

classified as an STG affiliate 

or part of an unauthorized 

group. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: In a prison, use of 

the swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 11: Identify any 

Hispanic gangs profiled 

within ODRC that use the six 

pointed star in any context. 

Request No. 11: Describe 

why the words “Blood and 

Honor” receive protection 

under ODRC policies when 

attached to the publication, 

“Blood and Honor” by 

W.E.B. Griffin (see Ex. - 

200), as found in RCI’s 

library, but is characterized as 

participating in a “White 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Although in a 

prison the use of the swastika, 

Roman salute, lightning bolts, 

and/or the words “blood and 

honor” are inherently 

inflammatory, the book 

Blood and Honor written by 

W.E.B. Griffin does not 

glorify Hitler, Aryans, or the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 23 of 28 PAGEID #: 3466
24 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Norris: 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Gobel: 

Defendant Norris’ 

response: 

Supremacy” group when used 

by pro Aryan American 

publications. 

Third Reich. Instead, it 

roundly vilifies them and 

ends in their inglorious 

humiliation and defeat. 

Request No. 12: Identify if 

any members of the Hispanic 

Catholic sect use the six 

pointed star. 

Request No. 12: Describe 

how an inmate’s due process 

rights may be violated where 

they are denied a meaningful 

opportunity to present a 

defense [to a] charged 

conduct offense that has 

Constitutional implications, 

such as being punished for 

ethnic expressions. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: At a hearing 

officer’s discretion, a conduct 

report may be heard by the 

hearing officer or referred to 

the Rules Infraction Board. 

Moreover, if the conduct 

report is resolved by the 

hearing officer, the Rules 

Infraction Board Chairman 

will review the decision. 

Request No. 13: Identify if 

any members of the Hispanic 

Catholic sect are gang 

profiled. 

Request No. 13: Describe the 

opportunity afforded Plaintiff 

Heid to establish a defense to 

hearing of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: When a conduct 

report is heard by a hearing 

officer, the inmate is provided 

an opportunity to present his 

or her defense. Furthermore, 

if the conduct report is 

resolved by the hearing 

officer rather than being 

referred to the Rules 

Infraction Board, the rules 

Infraction Board Chairman 

will review the decision. 

Request No. 14: Identify the 

person whose handwriting 

appears on the Truth 

Ministries, CSCS of Ohio's 

mailing list as on the Court 

record at Doc.68-3, Pg.ID: 

1645-46. 

Request No. 14: Describe 

why the drawing central to 

the issue of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328 was not 

withheld pursuant to AR 

5120-9-19. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: RC 5120-9-19 

applies to publications. 

Request No. 15: Describe 

how the prison STG policy 

can be Constitutional but 

unconstitutionally applied to 

an obscure religious sect. 

Request No. 15: Describe 

why the withholding 

procedures of AR 5120-9-19 

were not made available to 

Plaintiff Heid in the 

withholding of his hand 

drawn birthday card central to 

the issue of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: RC 5120-9-19 

applies to publications. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 24 of 28 PAGEID #: 3467
25 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Norris: 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Gobel: 

Defendant Norris’ 

response: 

Request No. 16: Identify any 

communications you were 

part of regarding Plaintiffs 

and the CS faith between 

2012-2018 AD. 

Request No. 16: Describe the 

rule violation(s) and/or 

permissibility of an inmate to 

make a drawing of the cover 

of a book which was 

permitted [by] the prison’s 

screening provisions. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: RC 5120-9-19 

applies to publications. 

Request No. 17: Identify any 

participation you took in 

removing the CS religious 

literature from the RCI chapel 

library in 2015 AD. 

Request No. 17: Identify 

ODRC’s position on conduct 

that appeals to Aryan 

Americans. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Defendant cannot 

formulate a response to such 

an unbounded hypothetical. 

Request No. 18: Identify any 

participation you had in the 

removal of Plaintiffs’ 

personal religious/political 

literature at issue in this 

lawsuit. 

Request No. 18: Identify 

ODRC’s position on content 

whose rhetoric emphasizes 

the positive aspects of 

National Socialist Germany. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Since in a prison 

the use of such things as the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory, 

there are no positive aspects 

of National Socialist 

Germany. 

Request No. 19: Define what 

“white supremacy” means as 

used by ODRC. 

Request No. 19: Describe if 

your decision to find Plaintiff 

Heid guilty of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328 was influenced 

by any political beliefs which 

oppose the existence of White 

national/government. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Not only are 

Defendant’s personal beliefs 

irrelevant, but also in a prison 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 20: Define what 

“white separatism” means as 

used by ODRC. 

Request No. 20: Describe if 

your decision to find Plaintiff 

Heid guilty of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328 was influenced 

by any religious beliefs that 

are in opposition to the 

Christian Separatist (“CS”) 

faith. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Not only are 

Defendant’s personal beliefs 

irrelevant, but also in a prison 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 21: Identify any 

exemptions to the ODRC's 

STG classifications of “White 

Supremacist” or “White 

Request No. 21: Describe if 

your decision to find Plaintiff 

Heid guilty of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328 was influenced 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Not only are 

Defendant’s personal beliefs 

irrelevant, but also in a prison 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 25 of 28 PAGEID #: 3468
26 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Norris: 

Interrogatory to Defendant 

Gobel: 

Defendant Norris’ 

response: 

Separatist” that exist for 

members of Aryan ethnicity. 

by any adverse beliefs about 

racial purity. 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 22: In carrying 

out your job duties have you 

ever used personal 

religious/racial/political 

beliefs to suppress and/or 

oppress any aspect of the 

Aryan American ethnic 

group. 

Request No. 22: Describe if 

your decision to find Plaintiff 

Heid guilty of conduct report 

RCI-15-8328 was influenced 

by any political beliefs which 

oppose the existence of the 

Theocratic Republic. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Not only are 

Defendant’s personal beliefs 

irrelevant, but also in a prison 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 23: In carrying 

out your job duties have you 

ever used personal 

religious/racial/political 

beliefs to suppress and/or 

oppress any aspect of the 

Christian Separatist faith. 

Request No. 23: Identify 

ODRC’s position on 

Plaintiffs beliefs which 

promotes racial purity. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Although Plaintiff 

may believe whatever he 

chooses to believe, in a prison 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 24: Describe the 

ODRC’s STG protocols when 

encountering Aryan 

Americans within ODRC. 

Request No. 24: In carrying 

out your job duties have you 

ever used personal 

religious/racial/political 

beliefs to suppress and/or 

oppress any aspect of the 

religious teachings of the CS 

faith. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Not only are 

Defendant’s personal beliefs 

irrelevant, but also in a prison 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Request No. 25: Identify how 

the STG classifications are 

not overly broad when it 

comes to Aryan Americans 

under ODRC’s custody 

Request No. 25: In carrying 

out your job duties have you 

ever used personal 

religious/racial/political 

beliefs to suppress and/or 

oppress any aspect of Aryan 

American culture. 

Subject to the foregoing 

objections: Not only are 

Defendant’s personal beliefs 

irrelevant, but also in a prison 

environment, the use of the 

swastika, Roman salute, 

lightning bolts, and/or the 

words “blood and honor” are 

inherently inflammatory. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 26 of 28 PAGEID #: 3469
27 

(ECF No. 216 at PAGEID ## 3173-3193.) Indeed, it appears to the Court that Defendant 

Gobel’s responses were inadvertently “copy and pasted” into Defendant Norris’ responses. As a 

result, neither Defendant Norris nor Defendant Gobel has properly responded to Plaintiffs’ 

interrogatories. Accordingly, the Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 216) is GRANTED as to 

Defendant Norris and Defendant Gobel’s responses to Plaintiff Heid’s Interrogatories. 

5. Defendant Graves’ responses to Plaintiff Damron’s interrogatories 

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Graves also has “failed to provide any response” 

to twenty-five (25) interrogatories served by Plaintiff Damron. (ECF No. 216 at PAGEID ## 

3193-3205.) In response, Defendants maintain that they served Defendant Graves’ responses on 

May 28, 2021, but state that “in case Plaintiffs did not previously receive copies of Mr. Graves’ 

executed responses, [Defendants’ counsel] will have them reissued.” (ECF No. 218 at PAGEID 

# 3388.) It is unclear to the Court whether Defendants have forwarded Defendant Graves’ 

responses to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, for the sake of clarity, the Third Motion to Compel (ECF 

No. 216) is GRANTED as to Defendant Graves’ responses to Plaintiff Damron’s Interrogatories 

to the extent he has not already re-served them. 

IV. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Motion by Leave of Court to Compel 

Defendants to Provide Adequate Responses to Discovery Request, ECF No. 184, is GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 

4-7, 37, and 45 of Plaintiffs’ requests for the production of documents to the extent responses 

have not already been provided, and DENIED IN PART as to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ 

discovery requests. Defendants are DIRECTED to respond to Request Nos. 4-7, 37, and 45 of 

Plaintiffs’ requests for the production of documents by APRIL 30, 2022. Defendants shall serve 

their response and shall file proof of service to the Court docket within SEVEN (7) DAYS of 

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 27 of 28 PAGEID #: 3470
28 

service. 

Additionally, the Motion by Leave of Court to Supplement Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 

Defendants to Provide Adequate Responses to Discovery Request, ECF No. 216, also is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Motion is GRANTED as to 

Defendant Norris’ responses to Plaintiff Heid’s Interrogatories, Defendant Gobel’s responses to 

Plaintiff Heid’s Interrogatories, and Defendant Graves’ responses to Plaintiff Damron’s 

Interrogatories, and it is DENIED as to the remaining interrogatories. Defendants Norris, Gobel, 

and Graves are DIRECTED to respond to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories by APRIL 30, 2022. 

Defendants Norris, Gobel, and Graves shall serve their responses and shall file proof of service 

to the Court docket within SEVEN (7) DAYS of service. 

As noted in the Court’s October 18, 2021, the discovery deadline in this case passed on 

July 1, 2021. (ECF No. 209.) Except for as set forth above, the Court finds no reason to extend 

the discovery deadline again. Accordingly, the parties are NOT to engage in any new or 

additional discovery. The Court will set a dispositive motion briefing schedule by separate 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March 24, 2022 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers_________ 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 223 Filed: 03/24/22 Page: 28 of 28 PAGEID #: 3471