IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02721–RM–KMT

BRUCE W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARK KELLAR, individually and in his official capacity as the health service Administrator at

FCI-Florence,

LISA MCDERMOTT, individually and in her official Capacity as Assistant Health Services

Administrator at FCI-Florence,

PETER BLUDWORTH, individually and in his official capacity as associate warden at FCIFlorence,

DR. DAVID ALLRED, individually and in his official capacity as clinical director of FCIFlorence,

DR. GEORGE SANTINI, individually and in his official capacity as staff Physician at FCIFlorence,

MRS. A. VINYARD, individually and in her official capacity as Physician assistant at FCIFlorence,

GILBERTA TRUJILLO, individually and in her official capacity as secretary of medical at FCI

Florence,

J. GRIFFITH, individually and in his official capacity as Correctional Officer at FCI-Florence,

JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Health Programs at North Central

Region, Leavenworth, Kansas, and

DR. JAMES PELTON, individually and in his official capacity as Region Medical Director at

North Central Region, Leavenworth, Kansas,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Leave to Request Production of Additional

Documents” [Doc. No. 160] and Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery in

Case 1:11-cv-02721-RM-KMT Document 167 Filed 05/03/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
1

 It is not clear whether Plaintiff is requesting 7 additional requests for documents per

party, or whether he is requesting 7 additional total requests. Based on the representations of

Plaintiff concerning the scope of his additional requests, it appears he is requesting 7 more

requests in total.

2

 A stay in this case was granted while the court considered the defendants’ previously

filed motions to dismiss but was lifted upon the recommendation by this court that the motions

be granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. Nos. 122 and 123.] Those recommendations were

adopted by the District Judge on March 5, 2013. [Doc. No. 132.] 

3

 There is no official transcript of this hearing because none was ordered by either side to

support or substantiate their arguments.

2

Alternative Leave to Request Additional Interrogatories” [Doc. No. 159], both filed April 22,

2013. Plaintiff seeks an additional 71

 requests for production of documents and additionally

seeks to clarify whether he is allowed to serve 25 interrogatories in total divided amongst all

defendants or whether the 25 allowable interrogatories were allowed to be directed to each

defendant, i.e. party. The defendants object to both motions on the basis first that the court

minutes of the scheduling hearing on March 21, 2013 state, “Each side shall be limited to

twenty-five (25) Interrogatories . . . ” [Doc. No. 145 (March Minutes”) at 2](emphasis added)

and that the Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment which could, if granted,

resolve the case. (Resps. [Doc. Nos. 164 and 165].) The court notes first that the March

Minutes incorrectly portray what actually was stated at the hearing concerning division of the

interrogatories and second, that the Defendants have not successfully sought a stay of discovery

based upon their motions for summary judgment.2

The court has reviewed the oral recording of the March 21, 2013 hearing.3 When

discussing the number of interrogatories and other written discovery allowed by the parties, the

Case 1:11-cv-02721-RM-KMT Document 167 Filed 05/03/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

defendants’ counsel repeatedly stated that the defendants agreed with the limitations on

discovery as previously ordered at the scheduling conference held on July 10, 2012. In fact,

defense counsel even referenced the Minute Entry for that previous conference, Doc. No. 70, and

stated that the defendants supported all the court’s previous limitations therein. The plaintiff

also agreed on the same limitations. 

The court has also reviewed the oral recording and the Minutes of the hearing on July 10,

2012. The minutes clearly state, “Each party shall be limited to twenty-five (25) interrogatories.

[Doc. No. 70 at 2] (emphasis added). Additionally, the July minutes also state each party shall

be limited to seven (7) Requests for Production of Documents.” Id. (emphasis added). The oral

record of the July 2012 proceeding reflects that there was an active discussion about the

limitations on discovery. The court advised the parties that limitations would apply to each

“person.” The court specifically asked if the Plaintiff would need 25 interrogatories per party

given the large number of parties in the case at the time. The Plaintiff replied that he did need 25

interrogatories as to some of the defendants. Defense counsel did not object to that number but

also stated his intention to file a motion to stay discovery based on his motions to dismiss. The

court thereafter specifically and unequivocally allowed Plaintiff to ask 25 interrogatories per

party and to make 7 requests for production of documents per party.

From reviewing the actual court proceedings, then, the court now finds that the March

Minutes are simply incorrect insofar as the notation that the discovery is limited to 25

interrogatories per side and 7 requests for production of documents per side.

Case 1:11-cv-02721-RM-KMT Document 167 Filed 05/03/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

The court reminds Plaintiff that discovery through interrogatories and requests for

production of documents can only be made on parties. To obtain documents or other

information from a non-party such as the hospital where Plaintiff allegedly had his February 18,

2013 surgery, Plaintiff must use other means including the issuance of a subpoena under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED

1. Plaintiff’s “Leave to Request Production of Additional Documents” [Doc. No.

160] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is allowed to propound 7 total additional document requests upon

the Defendants collectively. 

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery in Alternative Leave to

Request Additional Interrogatories” [Doc. No. 159] is GRANTED. Plaintiff may propound up

to 25 interrogatories, including sub-parts, on each Defendant. To the extent interrogatories have

been previously propounded and responded to, the total number per defendant shall be reduced

thereby.

Dated this 3d day of May, 2013.

Case 1:11-cv-02721-RM-KMT Document 167 Filed 05/03/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4