Mays v. Sherburne County Jail

Background

This order addressed pretrial and discovery issues in Otis Mays’s case against Sherburne County Jail and other defendants. The earlier scheduling order limited written discovery, set deadlines, and required permission before a party could take a deposition. Those deadlines had passed, although the court had suspended the deadline for dispositive motions—motions that could resolve the case—while it addressed the pending nondispositive issues.

Discovery limits

Mays sought permission to serve more interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission because the case involved more than 20 individual defendants. The court denied in part his request to expand written discovery. It denied his request for additional document requests, finding that the defendants had represented that they produced his entire jail file and other records totaling 1,102 pages. The court nevertheless found good cause to modify the scheduling order and allowed Mays to serve 25 additional interrogatories.

The court directed that any additional interrogatories previously served beyond the original limit would be disregarded, and the defendants would not have to answer them. Mays could instead serve up to 25 new interrogatories by September 13, 2021, and the defendants had to answer or object by October 13, 2021.

Sanctions and document-production requests

Mays asked for sanctions based on allegedly destroyed video footage and property that had not been returned. The court denied the sanctions request because the record did not show that the jail destroyed evidence and did not show that the property was relevant evidence or was being withheld to deprive Mays of information.

The court denied Mays’s request to compel additional documents. The defendants stated that they had produced grievances, the jail file, disciplinary records, emails from his file, medical records, visit logs, and other materials. The court stated that it could not assume documents had been withheld and noted that Mays had received and reviewed the 1,102-page production. The court also denied requests for orders directed at officials at FCI-Gilmer and FCI-Hazelton because those institutions and personnel were not parties to the case and were outside the court’s power to order in this litigation.

The court denied Mays’s request to compel production under Document Request No. 14, which sought all disciplinary complaints against all defendants and the results. The court found that request overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

Depositions and subpoenas

The court denied Mays’s requests to depose several nonparties because, although they might have relevant information, Mays had not shown that he could pay the costs of their depositions. It also denied his request to depose defendant Patt Carr for similar reasons, including the cost of a court reporter. The court explained that indigent-party status did not require the court to advance deposition or other litigation costs. The court likewise denied a request to depose Dr. Victor A. Thonn.

The court denied Mays’s requests for additional service forms for people he sought to add as defendants because the court had already determined that his proposed amended complaint was not the operative pleading and had declined to allow the amendment. It denied his requests concerning discovery from the Federal Bureau of Investigation because the FBI was not a party, there was no showing that it had been served with a subpoena, and Mays had not shown that the requested information was relevant. The court also declined to order the U.S. Marshals Service to turn over property because it was not a party.

The court denied Mays’s request for depositions on written questions because he did not know how to locate the proposed deponents and the court could not investigate his claims or advise him on conducting discovery. It denied his request to subpoena records from the jail’s phone-service provider because the call records were not relevant to the claims in the operative complaint. The court also denied Mays’s proposed subpoena to attorney Robert Richman, finding that the request improperly sought discovery about whether discovery had been produced, that Richman had been Mays’s counsel, and that Mays had not shown the requested materials were relevant.

Amendment, severance, mail, and counsel

The court denied Mays’s request to change defendant names because the proposed changes would add defendants and amounted to an untimely attempt to amend the pleadings. It also denied his request for the names and badge numbers of all officers employed at the jail during the specified period, finding the request overbroad, disproportionate, and unsupported by good cause for a late amendment.

The court denied Mays’s request for more time to amend his complaint. It found that he had received discovery earlier, had not identified any specific new claim that the discovery revealed, and that a late amendment would delay the litigation. The court also denied his request to sever unrelated claims, explaining that the case had proceeded for nearly a year with the existing claims together and that severance at that stage would unfairly prejudice the defendants.

The court denied Mays’s request for sanctions based on defense counsel’s handling of mailed papers. It found that the cited prison mail policy did not require senders to mark envelopes as special or legal mail and that no court order imposed such a requirement on defense counsel. The clerk was asked to provide Mays with a complete copy of one filing.

The court denied Mays’s requests for appointment of counsel. It stated that civil litigants generally have no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel and concluded, after considering the record, that Mays had effectively communicated with the court, pursued written discovery, and obtained substantial documents. The court found that the difficulties he identified did not warrant appointment of counsel.

Defendants’ deposition request and amended schedule

The court granted the defendants’ request to depose Mays, finding that his testimony was relevant and proportional because he sought relief concerning conduct allegedly committed by 29 individuals. The defendants were required to complete the deposition within 30 days of the order and provide Mays with a copy of the transcript.

The amended schedule set November 3, 2021, as the deadline for nondispositive motions concerning the final discovery period and December 17, 2021, as the deadline for dispositive motions. The order also established deadlines for responses and replies and stated that the court would decide those motions based on the permitted written submissions.