Foster v. Litman

Background

Bradley W. Foster brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights, along with state-law claims concerning injuries he allegedly suffered while being transported in a vehicle restrained by a “Black Box Restraint System” on August 3, 2015. The opinion addressed three discovery-related motions against Ross Litman and Mark Phinney.

Foster’s first document request broadly sought paper documents, records, emails, invoices, and related data. His second request sought extensive information about Vehicle 579, including records, electronically stored information, photographs, and an opportunity to inspect the vehicle. The defendants represented that they had produced documents about the transport and photographs of the vehicle. The production consisted of approximately 35 pages, including transport-related materials and photographs of the vehicle’s interior and exterior.

Foster also served 26 interrogatories on Litman and 18 on Phinney. The scheduling order limited each side to 25 interrogatories. The defendants declined to answer the interrogatories as served but invited Foster to select 25 for responses. Foster sought unlimited interrogatories and requests for admission, citing his institutionalization and physical limitations. He separately requested an additional 180 days for discovery. The defendants did not oppose extending discovery time.

Motion to compel discovery

The court held that Foster had not adequately explained what documents he sought under the broad first request and had not completed the required good-faith meet-and-confer process before filing the motion. The court directed that, if he continued to dispute the response to that request, he needed to identify the documents sought, attempt a proper meet-and-confer, and file a motion complying with Local Rule 37.1 if the dispute remained unresolved. The court also stated that the defendants were expected to participate in that process in good faith.

For the more specific second request, the court found that documents concerning the vehicle’s safety features could relate to Foster’s allegations about the vehicle and restraint system. It also found that accident records related to Vehicle 579 were discoverable. The court ordered the defendants to produce documentation concerning the vehicle’s safety features and any accident records related to Vehicle 579, or to notify Foster in writing if they did not have those documents. The court found the rest of the requested information not reasonably likely to lead to relevant evidence and not proportional to the needs of the case, particularly given the photographs already produced.

The court denied Foster’s request concerning the format of the photographs because he had not explained why he needed the files in Portable Network Graphic format rather than the JPEG format previously agreed upon.

The order therefore states that Foster’s motion to compel was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The defendants were required to produce the specified safety-feature and accident-record documents, and the motion was otherwise denied.

Request for expanded discovery

The court denied Foster’s request for additional interrogatories without prejudice. It found that he had not made the required particularized showing that more interrogatories were necessary. The court noted that Foster had served only 18 interrogatories on Phinney and that requests for production and requests for admission were not subject to the same numerical limitation. The court also noted a pending Report and Recommendation concerning the claims against Litman, but did not adopt or decide that recommendation in this order.

The court stated that Foster could withdraw the 18 interrogatories served on Phinney and serve a new set of up to 25 interrogatories instead.

Scheduling-order modification

The court found good cause to extend the time for fact discovery because delays from motion practice affected the scope and timing of discovery. It granted Foster’s scheduling request insofar as the court would issue a separate amended pretrial scheduling order extending the fact-discovery deadline.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered the following: (1) the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part; (2) the motion for a hearing and expanded discovery was denied without prejudice; and (3) the request to modify the scheduling order was granted insofar as a separate amended order would extend fact discovery.