Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HARRY MICHAEL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

MORRIS YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of

Orders (Doc. 39, 41, 43); Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Morris Young; Motion

to File Objections to Motion to Compel Out-of-Time; and, Objections to Motion to

Compel Answer to Interrogatories.” (Doc. 45.) Defendant Young has filed a response.

(Doc. 46.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be granted in part and

denied in part.

Plaintiff previously filed a number of discovery motions, which the Court

construed as motions for issuance of subpoenas for the production of documents from

non-parties. (Docs. 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 42.) The Court denied each of these motions. 

(Docs. 39, 41, 43.) Plaintiff now requests reconsideration of the Court’s orders. This

request is granted to the extent that the Court takes Plaintiff’s arguments into account in

the present order.

Plaintiff claims that his filings were not intended to request issuance of

subpoenas. Rather, Plaintiff says that he was “provid[ing] notice to the parties and nonCase 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

parties” as “a time and cost saving request,” so that the non-parties could lodge

objections prior to service of a subpoena (Doc. 45, at 2.) Insofar as Plaintiff believes

that he can serve subpoenas on non-parties without Court approval, he is mistaken. As

the Court noted in its prior orders denying Plaintiff’s discovery motions, a pro se plaintiff

may be entitled to the issuance of a subpoena commanding the production of

documents from a non-party only upon Court approval. The Court repeated this—for

the fourth time—in its order forbidding Plaintiff to mail subpoenas to non-parties. (Doc.

44.) Plaintiff has not received Court approval for issuance of subpoenas, and it is

improper for him to send subpoenas that have not been issued by the Court directly to

non-parties. This order will serve as the final warning to Plaintiff to cease mailing

subpoenas to non-parties without Court approval. If he continues to do so, he will be

sanctioned. Plaintiff is once again advised that he may apply to the Court for

subpoenas, but such a request must be accompanied by a description of what records

he is seeking from each non-party and what relevance the records have to his claim. In

the instant motion, Plaintiff fails to provide such information, stating only that the

records he seeks are “related to discoverable material of parties to the action.” (Doc.

45, at 4.) 

Defendant Young filed a motion to compel on July 16, 2012, based on Plaintiff’s

incomplete answers to three interrogatories. (Doc. 32.) The Court granted the motion

and ordered Plaintiff to file complete answers to the interrogatories. (Doc. 39.) This

order was issued prior to a response to the motion to compel. Plaintiff now requests

permission to file objections to the motion to compel out of time. This motion is due to

be granted to the extent that this order has taken Plaintiff’s objections into account. 

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff makes two primary objections to the motion to compel: 1) that much of

the information that Defendant Young requested is in his own possession and control;

and 2) that information not in Defendant Young’s possession and control should be

subpoened from non-parties. The interrogatories in question relate to Plaintiff’s criminal

history and medical history. Plaintiff says that he has attempted, in his motion, to

provide complete responses to the interrogatories to the best of his ability, by listing as

much of his criminal history as he remembers and by providing the medical records in

his possession. Defendant Young, in response, says that he does not have access to

Plaintiff’s complete medical records. He says that he has asked Plaintiff to sign a

release to facilitate discovery of the medical records but that Plaintiff has not done so. 

Defendant Young does not indicate whether he has access to Plaintiff’s criminal history,

or whether Plaintiff’s response remains inadequate.

After considering Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant Young’s response, the

Court orders Plaintiff to serve an amended response to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 6, and

13 on Defendant Young. This response should provide as much detail as possible

about Plaintiff’s criminal history and medical history. However, Defendant Young is also

entitled to obtain Plaintiff’s complete relevant medical records from the Department of

Corrections and Plaintiff’s doctor. Defendant Young accurately points out that obtaining

these records would be greatly simplified by Plaintiff’s signing a release, so that his

records may be sent directly to Defendant Young by the medical provider. Defendant

Young says that he has sent Plaintiff a release to be signed. Plaintiff should sign the

release and return it to Defendant Young to facilitate the process of obtaining his

medical records.

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/12 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant Young, apparently based on

Defendant Young’s filing of a motion to compel and request for attorney’s fees. The

motion for sanction is without merit and due to be denied. 

Finally, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court’s denial of attorney’s fees

in its order granting Defendant Young’s motion to compel. (Doc. 39.) This request

appears to contemplate that the Court granted attorney’s fees to Defendant Young in

connection with the motion to compel. However, the Court denied Defendant Young’s

request for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of this issue is

therefore denied as moot.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Orders (Doc. 39, 41, 43); Motion

for Sanctions Against Defendant Morris Young; Motion to File Objections

to Motion to Compel Out-of-Time; and, Objections to Motion to Compel

Answer to Interrogatories,” Doc. 45, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and motion to file objections to

the motion to compel are GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff’s

arguments have been considered by the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions against Defendant Young is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of attorney’s fees is DENIED as

moot.

(2) Plaintiff must provide full and complete amended responses to

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/12 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 6 and 13 by August 20, 2012. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 6 day of August 2012. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:10-cv-474-SPM-GRJ

Case 4:10-cv-00474-RH-GRJ Document 47 Filed 08/06/12 Page 5 of 5