Clark v. Hercules, Inc., 2:13-cv-00794

Background

Plaintiff Noel D. Clark, Jr. (pro se) sues Hercules, Inc. arising from alleged pollutant contamination of property in DeSoto County, Florida; after earlier rulings, only Counts I and IV against Hercules remained.
Hercules moved to compel supplemental responses to numerous interrogatories and requested a case-management conference concerning Clark’s discovery noncompliance.
Parties disputed whether Defendants had exceeded Rule 33 interrogatory limits after several defendants were dismissed and whether Clark timely answered interrogatories after a discovery abeyance.
Many of Clark’s written interrogatory responses were cryptic (e.g., “filed in case,” “fact,” or “same as #7”) or omitted; Hercules sought fuller factual bases and HIPAA authorizations for medical records.
The Court reviewed each contested interrogatory, overruling some procedural objections, and ordered Clark to serve supplemental, sworn answers for most interrogatories within 14 days; denied compel as to interrogatory on prior lawsuits and denied the requested case-management conference.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Interrogatory No. 1 (communications about claims) must be answered	Clark: interrogatory moot, ambiguous, and exceeds allowable interrogatory limits	Hercules: directly relevant to claims/ defenses and not moot	Court: overruled objections; ordered supplemental sworn answer within 14 days
Whether Clark must identify destroyed/spoliated evidence (No. 5)	Clark: answered / cryptic reply	Hercules: needs factual bases for spoliation allegation	Court: response insufficient; ordered supplemental sworn answer within 14 days
Whether Clark must identify medical providers and provide HIPAA authorizations (No. 6)	Clark: answered / objected on same grounds as No.1; disputes HIPAA forms provided	Hercules: health is placed at issue by claimed personal injuries; records relevant	Court: ordered sworn supplement and required Hercules to send HIPAA form(s); Clark to sign and return within 14 days
Whether Clark must state factual bases for multiple paragraph allegations (Nos. 7–10, 15, 22–23, 25–28, 40)	Clark: generally asserted answered or objected as burdensome / repetitive	Hercules: seeks factual bases for complaint allegations; answers currently insufficient	Court: answers insufficient; ordered supplemental sworn answers within 14 days for each interrogatory listed
Whether Clark must identify trial witnesses and retained consultants (Nos. 43–44)	Clark: stated "already provided" or "not relevant"	Hercules: standard discovery; identities relevant, including retained consultants	Court: ordered sworn lists of persons Clark intends to call and of persons retained/prepared but not expected to testify within 14 days; overruled relevance objection
Whether Clark must list past lawsuits by docket and court (No. 45)	Clark: referred to public records; asserted burden and disability preventing exhaustive search	Hercules: Clark has greater access and should produce the information	Held: Hercules failed to show relevance / proportionality; motion to compel denied as disproportionate
Whether a case-management conference should be held to address discovery scope and personal-injury damages	Clark: (no specific policy)	Hercules: requested conference and to discuss whether Clark may seek personal-injury damages	Court: denied conference now; ordered supplemental answers first and held that personal-injury entitlement should be raised by motion if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729 (11th Cir. 1984) (motions to compel under Rule 37 are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) (scope of discovery determined by claims and defenses)
United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2013) (definition of relevant evidence)
Steel Erectors, Inc. v. AIM Steel Int’l, Inc., 312 F.R.D. 673 (S.D. Ga. 2016) (amendments to Rule 26 do not change the definition of relevance)