ANGLE v. MONTAG

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORT HEW ESTEDRNI STROIFCP TE NNSYLVANIA ERIDEI VISION BRYAANN GLIEI,, ) ) ) 1: 21-cv-00252-RAL Plinatiff ) ) VS. RICHAAR.LD A NZILLO ) UNITSETDA TMEASG ISTRJAUTDEG E ) DRM.O NTAG, ) ) Defendant ) ECFNO.15 ) ORDE R PaliiffnB tryaAnng leI,IA n g(e)lfi leamd o titooc onmp let hper oduocfdt oicounm ents.

ECFN o.15 .Forte hfo llowirnega sohnimsso, t iisod enn iweidt hporjuuedti ce.

Angilasen inimntea hc tues toofthd ePye nsnylvDaenpiaar otfmC oernrte c(tDiO)oC ns a tiSttsa otrree cCtionala AtIl nbsi(toSinCt Iu-t)Ai.lHo bincis oo mnplaasritsdneec tli am usnrd e the" Consnt aintldua twofist o h UeniStteadt adenP se"n ylnvsasnttialeaa bwa seudp on allegatthDiaeotfen nsd Dar Mn.otn atgp roviinadedeqdu daetnetca arlwe h iAlneg wlaes incacreartaettdh eD OC'Stsa CtoerrecIntsitointauFltoe irso(tnCS Ia-rtFet) o.sA nlegfi lead onep-a gmeotito ocnmo pleo nD eecmbr2e 92,0 12.Hi mso tnia osserhtehsa sret qhuaets ted documfreonmtt hsDee fendt "asneevr"at liemsb uhta sre ceinvoae nwdse rEC.F N o 15H.i s motimounsbe td enbieecda huesh aesfa iltoec do mpwliytt hhe rep rodcuerraelq uir.e ments Asap rsoei ncarcpelraaiAtnnetgdihl ffae,s armgeuta rbtelhqyeu iroefFm eeRdn..Ct i v. P.3 7)(()alt hbaetfo,fir lei anm go titoocn o mphee"l a,t tetmocp otnefewdri "tt hhD ee fendant by sendlitentgeal rtsh,o uhagsha thtean cosh eepda "crreatifitcaet itoothn a"efft e ctr eaqsu ired byR ul37e . A nothisesrpu ree vetnehCt oirunfrtgo mp rviodinAgn gewl itrlhei e isfth ta ap arty hsa3 0daytsoe psronidnwr itinagw rtiotre qtueenfos r td ocumentFse du.Cn vidRP.e .. r 34(b)(bu2 tA)n(gAl)me,ot' isdoo ensn o ts ttateh deae otrd at ueposnw hi hceshe rvedh is requefosr dtosc umeFnintaslt.lh Cyeo, ru 'stc saea nmageomreedrrn etm itnhdes pthata rties "tdhies coprovceerisygss ov ernedb yF edeurlasoel fC viRiPlorc ed2u6r-e43 57,a,n tdh e CourLotc'aRslul esEC.F" N o1.7 L.ocCaivli Rlul 3e7 2p. rov"i[daed]sin,sy c yom voetrion filepdu rstou Faendt.C i vRP...2 6th orug3h7sh lailnc luid nthee,mo tiitsoefnol ri nana ttached memorandauv me,r braetciimot fea atciithnoe nr ro,rge qauteoansrstyw,er ers,p onasned, ojbecwthiioicntshh e s ubjoeftc hmteot iono rac opoyft e ha ctudsaiclo vdeourcmye wnhti icsh teh subjof ethcemt o tio(enm.p"h aaddseid1s A) n.gl meo'otsnid oenositn c ldueth i.s Evenif A nlg'e msotionw apsr ocedvaulrsiaodlm, loe yfh idsic sovreeqruye s atlsso appeiamrropp ebre catuhsseeey ie nk foornbme yaotnitedhs ocepo fFe dR. .C iPv ..26 .Under FeRd..Ci vP..26 ()b1() ",[ ]pa rmtayio etbsa diins corgveaerrdyani ynn ogn primvaitlttheetag re d irsel evtoa annyt p artclya'iorsmd efenasdn per oporttoti hnoeeend asol ft hcea sceo,n sidering theim portoaf tnh ciees saustet sai knte ha ec ttihoaenm ,o uin ncto ntrotvhpeeatr risreyels,a' t ive accteorsel esva nintfo rmattihoen ,p raretsioeutsrh'ice me psto,ar nocfte hd ei scovery in resoltveh iisnsugea nsdw, h ethtehbruer deonre xpeonfts hpeer opdoissecdoo vuetriwygei htss likelybn eefit" ".Themo vipnagrm tutysd emsotnrtahrteele e vaonftce hien fo rmastoiuotgnoah t praticcullaoairdrm e fensMeo.n"t avnT.ier tz20t 1,W6 L 3053310at,* 2( M.D.P a M.ay 26, 2016)W.h ithlees o cpeof dicsoviesbr ryo saedSe,e avrM.so on2e0y1W,8L 5 84711a9,t* 3 1T hCeo urLto'csa la Rrauev laeisol nalboilntne he Ce o urwte'bss ite: https://www.pawd.uscourts8. gl.o pvId/SOfse a.ie1l t Gseeosn /ePprraaawlcdP /trfioiccleee dsu/rlensn,a nual UnitSetdaM taegsi sJturdaRgtieec hAa.Lr adn zaivlaliol,a ble at: https://www,pi.)wd.uscourGtesn.ePgrrQ.aaylc/ Pt�riioctce{:)e sAd/puprra2iew1lsd. /pfidlf.e s/Lanzillo (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2018), a “valid claim[ | of relevance or privilege” operates to restrict a court’s otherwise broad discretion. McConnell v. Canadian Pac. Realty Co., 280 F.R.D. 188, 192-93 (M.D. Pa. 2011).

Angle’s request for his “complete prison record” is overly broad in both time and scope.

ECF No. 15. This is also true of his request for “any and all medical records” from SCI-Forest and SCI-Albion. Angle may well be able to limit the scope of this request to comply with applicable rules, but in its present form, it is clearly objectionable. His request for “any other complaints about or on the defendant” is also a “sweeping, generalized and overly broad discovery request[ |.” See Mercaldo v. Wetzel, 2016 WLS5851958, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2016) (collecting cases regarding records of complaints or misconducts). Angle’s request for written statements or reports about his dental care produced at either SCI-Forest (where the inadequate care allegedly took place) or SCI-Albion (his current prison) appear to be facially valid, relevant requests. Angle’s request for “any and all rules, regulations, and policies about dental treatment of prisoners” also appears to be relevant, but the Court takes no position on potential confidentiality issues or other possible objections to disclosure on such a limited record.

For these reasons, Angle’s motion to compel production of documents at ECF No. 15 is denied without prejudice. Angle may serve discovery requests on the Defendant as explained in this Coutt’s case management order at ECF No. 17 and this Court's Local Rules.

DATED this 16" day of January, 2022.

BY THE COURT: UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE