Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. City of Billings

United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division

April 23, 2014

BENJAMIN KARL SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BILLINGS, BILLINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF ST. JOHN and OFFICER MORRISON, Defendants.

ORDER

CAROLYN S. OSTBY, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is pending on Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery. ECF 27. Plaintiff, Benjamin Smith, did not respond to Defendants' motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(B)(ii), a failure to file a response to a motion may be deemed an admission that the motion is well-taken. The Motion to Compel will be granted.

I. Legal Standard for Motions to Compel

The Court has broad discretion to manage discovery. Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 278, 289 (9th Cir. 2011) ( citing Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.1988)).

If no claim of privilege applies, the production of evidence can be compelled regarding any matter that is "relevant to any party's claim or defense..." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The Court can limit discovery requests if it finds that "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

II. Discussion

A. Interrogatory No. 3

This interrogatory asks Smith to describe every encounter with law enforcement that he has had the past ten years. Even though Smith is in prison, he must provide Defendants with a list of every encounter with law enforcement that he can recall in the past ten years. If he cannot recall any such encounters, he must so state.

B. Request for Production No. 3 and 11

These requests seek copies of all documents which relate to or support Smith's claims for damages including income tax returns for the preceding seven years. Smith responded that he does not have the resources to provide this information. ECF 28-1 at 4.

To the best of his recollection, Smith must specifically list the amount of the value of each item of damages he seeks and how he will establish that value. If he does not have documents to support the value of each item of damages, he must state whether such documents exist, and if so where they are located and who has custody or control of those documents. Defendants can provide Smith with a release to obtain copies of tax returns.

C. Request for Production No. 4

This request seeks copies of all Smith's medical records for the past ten years. The only medical records that appear to be relevant to Smith's claims are those for the treatment for psychological, psychiatric, mental and emotional health. Therefore, Smith must provide Defendants a list of all such treatments he has received in the past ten years to the best of his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.