Graziano v. Wetzel et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD GRAZIANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:23-CV-00947
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a motion to compel filed by Plaintiff Edward Graziano.
For the following reasons, the court will deny the motion to compel.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL H ISTORY
Plaintiff, an inmate currently housed at the State Correctional Institution
Benner (“SCI-Benner”) in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, initiated this action by filing a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in February of 2024. (Doc. 1.) The parties are
currently engaging in discovery. In the August 20, 2025 case management order,
the court directed Defendants to provide Plaintiff with “all incident reports,
grievances, disciplinary reports, or other similar documents in its possession
concerning the alleged incident or incidents and all medical records in its
possession regarding Plaintiff that relate to the claims in the complaint” by
September 19, 2025. (Doc. 80.) On September 17, 2025, Defendants’ counsel
filed a certificate of service stating they provided Plaintiff with grievances, inmate
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 8

2
request forms, maintenance work order, documents regarding the COVID
pandemic and procedures, and medical records. (Doc. 87.)
On December 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel and a
discovery master. (Doc. 93.) That same day, he filed a motion to compel, seeking
sanctions, and seeking to strike Defendants’ objections and answers. (Doc. 95.)
Specifically, Plaintiff is asking the court to order Defendants to produce “the
complete record or the missing portions of, the grievances they provided Plaintiff
and all relevant contact trancing reports (to be produced in paper or document
format), and Plaintiff’s complete medical records from July 1, 2021 to the
present.” 1 (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ general
objections included with their response to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and
Defendants’ answers to paragraphs 6 through 26 “so that those requests can be
addressed through Plaintiff’s formal discovery requests.” (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks
a stay in the case pending the court’s disposition of this motion and accompanying
motions for appointment of counsel and discovery master. (Id.)
On December 18, 2025, the court entered an order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel and a discovery master and ordered Defendants to respond
to the motion to compel. (Doc. 97.)
1 It appears that Plaintiff was not provided medical records from April of 2022 to the present.
(Doc. 96, p. 5.)
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Defendants filed a brief in opposition on December 30, 2025. (Doc. 99.)
Plaintiff has not filed a reply.
S TANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as
“any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case . . . Information within the scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1); see
also Democratic Nat’l Committee v. Republican Nat’l Committee, 2019 WL
117555, at *2 (3rd Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) (“The court may limit discovery to ensure its
scope is proportional to the needs of a case.”). As such, “all relevant material is
discoverable unless an applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted.” Pearson v.
Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000). A matter is relevant if “it has any tendency
to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the
fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. It is well-
established that the scope and conduct of discovery are within the sound discretion
of the trial court. In re Find Paper Antitrust Litg., 685 F.2d 810, 817–18 (3d Cir.
1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
A party who has received evasive or incomplete discovery responses may
seek a court order compelling disclosures or discovery of the materials sought.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The moving party must demonstrate the relevance of the
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 8

4
information sought to a particular claim or defense; the burden then shifts to the
opposing party, who must demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request
does not fall within the broad scope of discovery or is otherwise privileged or
improper. Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255, 258 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff makes three requests in his motion to compel: (1) he argues that
Defendants have failed to comply with the court’s case management order and
should face sanctions; (2) he seeks to have the general objections to the production
of documents stricken; and (3) he seeks to have the responses to paragraphs 6
through 26 stricken. (Doc. 95.)
A. Defendants Complied with the Case Management Order and
Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions Will Be Denied.
Plaintiff is adamant that Defendants’ lack of production runs afoul of the
court’s August 20, 2025 case management order. (Doc. 95; Doc. 96, pp. 4–11.) 2
Specifically, Plaintiff states that they did not produce the full set of relevant
grievances but excluded several appeals of the grievances produced and omitted
several grievances. (Doc. 96, pp. 4–5.) He also objections to the format of the
grievance materials and instead requests a single page spreadsheet organized to his
specifications. (Id., p. 9.) Additionally, Plaintiff states that they did not produce
2 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 8

5
the full set of medical records by failing to produce records from April 2022 to the
present. (Id., pp. 7–9.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that they should have
produced all the contract tracing records applicable to SCI-Camp Hill. (Doc. 95.)
Plaintiff lists multiple grievance documents that were excluded from the
original production of materials. (Doc. 95, p. 5.) Defendants argue that they
produced all the relevant material and any additional material Plaintiff wishes to
review is available for inspection and copying from the institution in which he is
currently housed. (Doc. 99, p. 5.) The court’s case management order qualified
the production of records as “that related to the claims in the complaint.” (Doc.
80.) This leaves the extent of the automatic discovery at the initial discretion of
the Defendants with the expectation that Plaintiff make requests for anything not
initially produced. Therefore, absent evidence that Defendants acted in bad faith,
the court cannot find that Defendants violated the automatic discovery portion of
the case management order.
Regardless, Plaintiff is requesting the production of the outstanding
grievance documents set forth in his motion to compel. (Doc. 96, p. 5.)
Defendants do not raise any objections to the production of these grievances and
provide instruction on how he can gather them himself through a request to the
institution where he is housed. (Doc. 99, p. 6.) Therefore, the motion to compel
will be denied.
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 8

6
The court comes to the same conclusion concerning the medical records
from April 2022 through the present. Plaintiff can gather these records through a
request to the institution where he is housed. (Doc. 99, p. 6.)
As to Plaintiff’s argument that the court’s case management order includes
the requirement that Defendants produce contract tracing records, Defendants state
that no such records exist. (Doc. 99, p. 7.) “It is an obvious truism that a court
should not enter an order compelling a party to produce documents where the
documents do not exist.” Wells v. JPC Equestrian, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-2575, 2014
WL 5641305, *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2014) citing Taylor v. Harrisburg Area Comm.
Coll., 2013 WL 6095481 (M.D. Pa. Nov.20, 2013). Therefore, the court will deny
this request as well.
The court notes that Plaintiff argues that the production of documents
concerning the COVID-19 protocols were irrelevant. (Doc. 95.) Plaintiff is
allowed to disregard information he finds to be irrelevant to his claims. The
production of these documents does not violate the court’s case management order.
The court finds that Defendants did not violate the case management order.
Therefore, there are no grounds for sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be
denied.
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 8

7
B. Defendants’ General Objections Will Not be Stricken.
Defendants included a preliminary statement and general objections as a
precursor to their response to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents.
(Doc. 96-5.) Plaintiff seeks to have these general objections stricken. (Doc. 95.)
The Third Circuit has stated the following about general objections:
The Federal Rules do not prohibit general objections, but if the general
objection is interposed in an attempt to insulate from discovery a large
quantity of material that includes otherwise discoverable material when
only 	some 	of 	the 	material 	may 	be 	protectible, 	the 	objection 	is
inconsistent with the aim of discovery and may well be the subject of
sanction.
Grider v. Keystone Health Plain Central, Inc., 580 F.3d 119, 139–40 (3d Cir.
2009). Here, Defendants addressed each specific request for production of
documents following the general objections. (Doc. 96-5.) Nothing in the general
objections demonstrates that Defendants raised them in an attempt to insulate any
discoverable material. Instead, it serves as an introduction to the specific
responses. (Doc. 96-5, pp. 1–2.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request will be denied.
C. Defendants’ Responses to Paragraphs 6 Through 26 Will Not Be
Stricken.
Plaintiff requests that Defendants’ answers in paragraphs 6 though 26 be
stricken “so that those requests can be addressed through Plaintiff’s formal
discovery requests.” (Doc. 95, p. 4.) Here, Plaintiff’s intention is unclear. He
appears to be objecting to the fact that Defendants answered his request for
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 8

8
production in paragraphs 6 through 26 stating repeatedly that he had sent a letter
on October 24, 2025 requesting that Defendants ignore paragraph 6 through 26.
(Docs. 96, 96-4.) Then, Plaintiff uses ten pages in his brief in support arguing
against the objections set forth in the Defendants’ responses to paragraphs 6
through 56. (Doc. 96, pp. 15–25.) However, the motion itself does not request
production of the documents addressed in paragraphs 6 through 26, but seeks that
the responses be stricken. Therefore, the court finds that the court need not take an
action as to these requests.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to
compel. However, this denial will be made without prejudice as Plaintiff may
renew his motion if he is unable to gather the grievances and medical records from
the institution at which he is housed, or if he intends to seek the production of
documents in paragraphs 6 through 26 and subsequent discovery requests do not
prove fruitful.
An appropriate order follows.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: February 9, 2026
Case 1:23-cv-00947-JPW-EW Document 104 Filed 02/09/26 Page 8 of 8