Christopher Beaulieu a/k/a Crystal Beaulieu v. Cpl. Craig Orlando et al.

2018 DNH 019

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: February 16, 2018
• Docket: 15-cv-012-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Beaulieu a/k/a Crystal Beaulieu

v. Case No. 15-cv-012-JD Opinion No. 2018 DNH 019 Cpl. Craig Orlando et al.

O R D E R

At a discovery status conference held on September 22,

2017, the court, after consultation with the parties, deemed

discovery in this case closed, as to the claims asserted against

the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”) defendants.1

Notwithstanding that finding, the court granted plaintiff

Crystal Beaulieu leave to file a motion to compel discovery,

pertaining to discovery requests Beaulieu had already propounded

to the DOC defendants. Those rulings were memorialized in the

court’s September 28, 2017 Order (Doc. No. 159). Beaulieu

subsequently filed the instant motion to compel (Doc. No. 162),

to which defendants object (Doc. No. 163).

1Discovery has not closed with respect to Beaulieu’s claims asserted against defendant Matthew Rodier. Discovery Order Requested by Beaulieu

In her motion to compel, plaintiff asks the court to direct

the defendants to provide her with the following discovery:

1. Answers to written questions (attached to the

motion to compel as Exhibits A, B, and C), from five

employees of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections

(“DOC”) who are not defendants to this action.

2. All request slips written to defendant Barbara

Slayton during 2013 and 2014;

3. New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”) medical and

security records concerning three uses of force that

occurred at the NHSP Secure Housing Unit (“SHU”) in 2016

and 2017;

4. The ability to view video footage of the March

2012 incident at issue in this case;

5. The course completion status sheets for

defendants Slayton, Stevenson, Cascio, Kimball, and Bishop,

concerning their Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”)

training;

6. Clarification of or supplemental answers to

requests #3 and #4 in plaintiff’s fourth request for

admissions, and request #1 in plaintiff’s fifth request for

admissions; and

2 7. Defendant Cascio’s answers to questions attached

to the motion to compel as Exhibit D.

Discussion

I. Non-Party Witnesses (Request 1) Slayton Request Slips (Request 2) Use of Force Records (Request 3) Cascio Responses to New Questions (Request 7)

In the requests identified in this Order as Requests 1-3

and 7, Beaulieu makes new discovery requests in that they were

not made prior to the close of discovery. As defendants point

out in their objection, this case was filed approximately three

years ago, discovery has been ongoing for more than two years,

and discovery is now closed. Because discovery has closed,

should Beaulieu need additional discovery materials, she must

seek leave of court to reopen discovery, demonstrating good

cause for not seeking the discovery in question prior to the

close of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

Beaulieu has neither moved to reopen discovery nor

demonstrated good cause for doing so, nor demonstrated that her

failure to request the discovery in Requests 1-3 and 7 was the

result of excusable neglect. For these reasons, her motion to

compel responses to Requests 1-3 and 7 are denied, without

prejudice to Beaulieu’s ability to move to reopen discovery

making the appropriate showing.

3 II. Access to Video of March 2012 Incident (Request 4)

In Request 4, Beaulieu seeks access to a video of the March

2012 incident underlying claims in this action. Defendants

object, stating that Beaulieu has seen the video twice and had

the opportunity to take notes, and that Beaulieu has not

demonstrated that she has made any reasonable request for

further access to the video that has been denied. Because

Beaulieu has failed to show that she has requested and been

denied the ability to view the video, her motion to compel in

that regard is denied.

III. PREA Training Records (Request 5)

In Request 5, Beaulieu seeks documentation of training

defendants have received. Defendants object, stating that the

only document in the DOC’s possession that is responsive to

Beaulieu’s request has already been provided to Beaulieu.

Beaulieu has not demonstrated any basis to find that additional

documents in fact exist, and defendants cannot produce documents

they do not have. Accordingly, her motion to compel a response

to Request 5 is denied.

IV. Request 6

Beaulieu seeks clarification of the following responses she

received to three requests for admissions propounded to 4 defendants. In Beaulieu’s Fourth Request for Admissions, she

asked defendants to admit the truth of certain statements, and

received responses, as follows:

 Request for Admission (3): “That spit is not seen hitting Cpl Orlando’s face on security video footage dated 3-7-2012.”

Response: “The video of the incident speaks for itself. Admitted that the video shows Plaintiff turn toward Cpl. Craig Orlando, and then an immediate reaction from Orlando.”

 Request for Admission (4): “Lt. Paul N. Courchesne claims on the Disciplinary Report that he seen the spit hit Cpl. Orlando’s face.”

Response: “The Disciplinary Report speaks for itself. Admitted that the Disciplinary Report states, in part, ‘Inmate Beaulieu turns to his left and spits onto the right side of Cpl. Orlando’s face.’ This statement is included within the ‘Summary of Investigation’ section of the Disciplinary Report, which also states that ‘Inmate Beaulieu did not deny spitting on Cpl. Orlando, only that “Orlando assaulted me too.”’”

Doc. No. 163-1, at 3. In Beaulieu’s Fifth Request for

Admission, in pertinent part, she asked defendants to admit the

truth of a statement, and received a response as follows:

 Request for Admission (1): “That the victim and perpetrators should not be within sight or sound of each other at any time in accordance with the policy.”2

2Defendants’ Response to Beaulieu’s Fifth Request for Admissions (Doc. No. 163-2) does not make clear that Beaulieu identified a specific “policy” in the request for admission at issue here. Defendants’ answer to that request, however, indicates that “PPD 5.19” is the pertinent policy, and plaintiff has not disputed that. 5 Response: “PPD 5.10 provides the Prison Rape Elimination Act Procedures for the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. The PPD speaks for itself. By way of further answer, an immediate change of housing to ensure that an alleged perpetrator and alleged victim are not housed within sight or sound distance of each other can be difficult to achieve in the Secure Psychiatric Unit due to the different security levels of inmates/patients and the different levels of care between the wards in SPU. In addition, inmates/patients cannot be moved out of SPU unless the Director of Medical and Forensics Services approves of such a move and an alternative placement is arranged.”

Doc. No. 163-2, at 1.

Beaulieu argues that the defendants’ responses, to the

extent they state that the video, disciplinary report, or policy

“speaks for itself,” are unclear and evasive. Defendants object

to Beaulieu’s request for clarification of their answers,

stating that they have “clearly and thoroughly” responded to the

pertinent requests.

The court must examine whether the defendants’ answers

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4), governing answers to

requests for admission. That rule states:

If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny. 6 If the Court finds that an answer does not meet the requirements

of Rule 36, it “may order either that the matter is admitted or

that an amended answer be served,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6).

See Jones v. Univ. of Memphis, No. 2:15-CV-02148-JPM-CGC, 2016

WL 6123510, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 23, 2016), R&R adopted, 2016

WL 6109407 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016).

Although defendants made statements in their responses in

addition to asserting that the item in question spoke for

itself, the statements in Beaulieu’s requests for admission are

neither admitted by the answer, nor expressly denied, and

defendants have not explained why they cannot truthfully admit

or deny their truth. Accordingly, the responses at issue in

Request 6 do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 36(a)(4).

The motion to compel is granted, in part, as to Request 6.

Defendants are directed to serve plaintiff with a response that

admits, denies, or states in detail why the defendants cannot

truthfully admit or deny the three requests for admission above,

in a manner that complies with the requirements of Rule 36,

within seven days of the date of this Order. Should defendants

fail to comply with this Order, the above-cited statements will

be deemed admitted.

Conclusion

For reasons explained in this Order, Beaulieu’s motion to

compel (Doc. No. 162) is granted, in part, as to Request 6 as 7 identified in this Order, and is otherwise denied. Defendants

are directed to provide answers to the requests for admission in

Request 6, as discussed above, within seven days of the date of

this Order. The defendants’ timely compliance with this Order

is expected to allow Beaulieu sufficient time to utilize that

information, as necessary, in her summary judgment objection,

which is due February 16, 2018.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Andrea K. Johnstone United States Magistrate Judge

January 29, 2018

cc: Christopher R. Beaulieu, pro se Matthew C. Rodier, pro se Laura E.B. Lombardi, Esq.