United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DOUGLAS E. ARPERT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on a motion filed by pro
se Plaintiff Kevin Planker (“Planker”) to
Produce Documents and to Supplement the Complaint. No.
opposition to the motion has been filed by defendants. Upon
reviewing the papers submitted by Planker and having declined
to hold oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b), for the
reasons set forth below Plaintiff's Motion is
a prisoner at New Jersey State Prison, filed his Complaint on
July 22, 2013, alleging myriad claims relating to his
confinement. The original Complaint named twelve defendants.
Upon screening the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp dismissed
with prejudice a number of Plaintiff's claims and
dismissed without prejudice claims against four supervisor
defendants, as well as claims asserting denial of access to
the courts, denial of religious exercise, denial of medical
care, denial of an adequate religious diet, and miscellaneous
claims regarding his conditions of confinement. Id.
Judge Shipp's Order, dated January 20, 2015, gave
Plaintiff 45 days to file a motion to amend as to those
claims dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 4. Pursuant to
the Order, only Defendants Barnes and Hoffman remain.
did not file a Motion to Amend until more than a year later,
on March 10, 2016. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff later withdrew that
motion in order to file an allegedly more
“complete” motion on May 27, 2016. ECF Nos. 25,
30. This Court denied that motion by order dated March 31,
2017, reasoning that the proposed Amended Complaint, at more
than 400 pages long and containing “a mass of verbiage,
” failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8, which requires a “a short and plain statement of the
claim” and “be simple, concise, and
direct.” ECF No. 58 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), (d)).
This Court also pointed to Plaintiff's undue delay in
filing the Motion to Amend well outside the time provided by
Judge Shipp and with the case then already four years old.
Id. at 4, 5.
April 25, 2017, Planker filed a Motion for Reconsideration as
to his Motion to Amend, ECF No. 59 at 4, and a day later
moved to Supplement the Complaint. ECF No. 60. This Court
denied the Motion for Reconsideration, finding that the
motion was filed out of time and failed to satisfy the
applicable standard governing motions for reconsideration.
ECF No. 77 at 6. Concomitantly, the Motion to Supplement the
Complaint was denied because Planker did not affix a copy of
the proposed supplemental pleading as required by Local Civil
Rule 7.1. Id. at 7.
November 17, 2017, Planker appealed the denial of the Motion
to Amend the Complaint. ECF No. 79. U.S. District Judge Brian
R. Martinotti affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to
demonstrate this Court's denial of his Motion to
Amend/Supplement was “clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” ECF No. 92, (citing L.Civ.R. 72.1(c)(1)(A)).
to Judge Martinotti's ruling, Plaintiff on March 8, 2018
filed the instant motion, which includes a second motion to
file a Supplemental Complaint “limited to only the
issues he claims were linked to retaliation by Defendants
Barnes and Hoffman” that continued after the
retirements of both Defendants. ECF No. 88.
The Motion to Produce Documents
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense” and “the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.” See also
Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000). At
the same time, the Federal Rules provide that the Court
“must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed” if it concludes that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
obtain the information by ...