Cooley v. Summit

Background

Plaintiff Morye Cooley, who is incarcerated, sued Defendant Summit Food Service alleging that the food service at Dakota County Jail violated his First Amendment religious rights and was nutritionally inappropriate. Specifically, Cooley alleged Summit repeatedly failed to provide him with correct special diet trays and instead gave him food he was allergic to.

Discovery Dispute

On July 2, 2025, Summit served Cooley via U.S. Mail with interrogatories (written questions a party must answer under oath), requests for production of documents, and authorization forms allowing Summit to access Cooley's medical records. Cooley did not respond by the August 5, 2025 meet-and-confer request or thereafter. Summit filed a motion to compel on September 19, 2025.

After the motion was filed, Summit discovered Cooley had been transferred to MCF-St. Cloud and was unable to properly serve him. Summit re-served the motion and supporting materials at MCF-St. Cloud on October 15, 2025, and the court extended Cooley's deadline to oppose the motion to November 17, 2025. As of the date of the order, Cooley had not filed any opposition or produced any discovery.

Legal Analysis

The court applied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33, 34, and 37. Under Rule 26, parties may obtain discovery of any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Rule 33 requires a party served with interrogatories to answer fully or object within 30 days. Rule 34 requires a party served with document requests to respond or object within 30 days. Rule 37 authorizes a court to issue an order compelling discovery when a party fails to answer interrogatories or produce documents.

The court found that Cooley's medical history was properly subject to discovery because he placed his own health at issue by alleging Summit gave him food he was allergic to, citing Sandoval v. Am. Bldg. Maint. Indus., Inc., 267 F.R.D. 257 (D. Minn. 2007), and J.J.C. v. Fridell, 165 F.R.D. 513 (D. Minn. 1995) (noting that medical-record authorizations are not automatically mandated under Rule 34 but may be ordered).

The court also noted that Cooley had waived most objections to the interrogatories under Rule 33(b)(4) (which states that grounds not raised in a timely objection are waived absent good cause) and that courts in the District of Minnesota have implied a similar waiver rule into Rule 34 for untimely objections, citing Klein v. Affiliated Grp., Inc., No. 18-cv-949, 2019 WL 1307884 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2019).

Although Summit suggested dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) was already warranted, the court declined to recommend dismissal at this stage. Instead, the court noted that Rule 37 is the appropriate mechanism for sanctions related to discovery failures and warned that non-compliance with the order could lead to further sanctions, including a possible recommendation for dismissal.

Ruling

The court granted Summit's motion to compel and ordered Cooley to provide signed answers to interrogatories, responses to document requests, responsive documents, and executed record authorizations by January 30, 2026 (stayed if Cooley appeals the order to the district judge). The court also found good cause to extend the scheduling order deadlines due to the procedural delays caused by Cooley's failure to respond, and directed Summit to file a proposed amended scheduling order within 14 days. The court reminded Cooley that his pro se status (representing himself without a lawyer) does not excuse him from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of Minnesota's Local Rules, or court orders.