ÿWPC! 3# ÚUNå %3 0š9 AQÓ 0Þ$ 0Dw@F4†š© 0J± 0Tû 0^O 0h­ 0r 0|‡ 0† 0‰ 1u 0dŽ Bò Æ 0DÕ 0@ 0DY D/ BÌ D3éU>B)ZDCƒ AMÆU*‡= Äv~ÐvÓN˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(r7$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÓ  Ó !"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(Ž(3°$¤¤Ý ƒ7!ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ƒU„V…V†D‡DˆD‰ŠÓ€–—n~<$Ôô3|x™2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd ",Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial }Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€*ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òFebruary€17,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€This€statute€provides€that€the€Claims€Commission€retains€exclusive€jurisdiction€forÏð ð[c]laims€for€libel€and/or€slander€where€a€state€employee€is€determined€to€be€acting€within€the€scopeÏof€employment.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó óÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿáùEG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÓÓò òÑ7€¼ÂXXdðdÈ7Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌà@ àò òWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÙ€ ÙœßR€-/,A1-j|Ó:` 7 `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌÌRONNIE€BRADFIELD,€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,ò òà àà àà à)à àó óLake€Circuit€No.€95„7308€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTEVE€DOTSON,€et€œal.,›€à àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€à à)à àó óAppeal€No.€€œ02A01„9707„CV„00152›Ìò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àà àDefendants/Appellees.à àò òà à)à àÌó óòòÌóóò òÌ€€€ÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€LAKE€COUNTY€Ìà@ àAT€TIPTONVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€R.€LEE€MOORE,€JR.,€JUDGEòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àFor€the€Defendants/Appelleesóó:òòÌóóÌRonnie€Bradfield,€Pro€Se€à àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkup€ÌTiptonville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àKyle€P.€Sowell€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART,€REVERSED€INÏPARTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.€€€€Ìò òòòÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓóóó óÑ7€¼ÂXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó ớ̜à àIn€this€case,€an€inmate€at€a€state€correctional€institution€filed€a€defamation€law€suit€in€circuitÏcourt€against€two€state€employees.€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€theÏœdefendants,›€holding€that€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€had€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€theÏmatter.€€The€trial€court€also€denied€the€plaintiffððs€requests€for€default€judgment.€€We€affirm€in€part,Ïœreverse›€in€part,€and€remand.Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant€Ronnie€Bradfield€(a.k.a.€Paul€Farnsworth)€(ð ðBradfieldðð),€an€inmate€atÏthe€Lake€County€Regional€Correctional€Facility€(ð ðCorrectional€Facilityðð),€is€no€stranger€to€thisÏcourt.€€In€October€of€1995,€Bradfield€filed€a€ò òòòpro€seó óóó€complaint€in€Lake€County€Circuit€CourtÏagainst€Defendant/Appellee€Ouida€ò ò€ó óStamper€(ð ðStamperðð),€a€state€probation€officer,€andÏDefendant/Appellee€Steve€Dotson€(ð ðDotsonðð),€an€associate€warden€at€the€Correctional€Facility.€ÏBradfieldððs€complaint€alleges:ÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€defendant(s),€willing€with€Malice€and€intent,€defame€the€Character€of€theÏPlaintiff,€as€well€as,€falsified€information€to€the€Criminal€Courts€of€Shelby€County,Ïon€September€20th,€1995.€€Of€information€that€the€Defendant(s)€knew€wasÏincorrect,€as€well€as,€no€foundation€to€prove€there€action(s)€and/or€wordsÏSlanderous€and€damaging€to€the€Plaintiff€legal€Litigation€which€did€affect€his€legalÏlitigation€and€cause€his€serve€harm.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€January€1996,€the€œdefendants›€filed€a€motion€for€dismissal€based€on€lack€of€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€and€lack€of€personal€jurisdiction€pursuant€to€Rules€12.02(1)€and€12.02(2)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€The€motion€asserted€that€the€Tennessee€Claims€CommissionÏhas€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€hear€the€case,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€œ9„8„307(a)(1)(R)€(1997).›× ƒ0 ××  ×€€There€were€no€affidavits€or€other€documents€to€support€the€motion.Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€defendantsðð€motion.€€Bradfield€appealed€the€dismissal.€€ThisÏCourt,€finding€ð ðnothing€in€the€record€to€establish€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction,ðð€issued€anÏorder€vacating€the€trial€courtððs€order€and€remanding€the€case.Ìà àOn€remand,€the€defendants€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€motion€wasÏsupported€by€affidavits€filed€by€Stamper€and€Dotson.€€The€affidavits€stated€that€BradfieldððsÏcomplaint€concerned€a€pre„sentence€report€prepared€and€submitted€by€Stamper€and€Dotson€for€useÏat€Bradfieldððs€sentencing€hearing.€€Stamper€testified€in€her€affidavit€that€the€pre„sentence€report€wasÏthe€only€information€she€had€ever€provided€to€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€concerningÏBradfield.€€Dotson€testified€in€his€affidavit€that€he€never€provided€any€information€about€BradfieldÏdirectly€to€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court,€but€that€he€provided€ð ðcertain€information€.€.€.Ïregarding€[Bradfieldððs]€adaptation€to€prison€lifeðð€to€Stamper,€with€the€understanding€that€thisÏwould€be€included€in€Bradfieldððs€presentence€report.€€Both€œdefendants›€testified€that€the€informationÏwas€provided€ð ðin€the€course€and€scopeðð€of€their€employment€with€the€State.Ìà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€œdefendantsðð›€motion€and€dismissed€the€case.€€From€this€order,ÏBradfield€now€appeals.€€On€appeal€Bradfield€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€award€himÏa€default€judgment€œand€by›€dismissing€his€œcomplaint.›Ìà à€€Bradfield€first€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€grant€him€a€judgment€byÏdefault.€€Bradfield€filed€several€motions€for€default€judgment,€based€on€the€œdefendantsðð›€failure€toÏtimely€respond€to€his€summons€and€complaint€as€well€as€his€discovery€requests.€€In€severalÏinstances,€the€trial€court€granted€the€œdefendants›€an€extension€of€time€after€which€the€œdefendants›Ïfiled€a€responsive€pleading.€€Whether€to€grant€a€motion€for€default€judgment€is€a€decision€withinÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€œcourt.€€ò òòòThomas€v.€Commissioner€of€Safetyó óóó,€No.€01„A„019011„CH„412,€1991€WL€111428,€*4€(Tenn.€App.€June€26,€1991).€€›€This€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.€€€Ìà àœBradfield€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€defendantsðð€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€A›€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movantÏdemonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€moving€party€is€entitled€toÏa€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.03.€€The€party€moving€for€summary€judgmentÏbears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòByrd€v.€Hallóóó ó,Í847€S.W.2d€208,€211€(Tenn.€1993).€€On€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€favor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€at€210„11.€€SummaryÏjudgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legal€conclusions€drawn€from€the€factsÏreasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€œare›€involved,€there€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regardingÏa€trial€court's€œÇgrant›€of€summary€judgment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòId.óóó óà àÌà àBradfield€contends€that€summary€judgment€was€inappropriate€because€the€œdefendants›€didÏnot€respond€to€his€discovery€requests.€€Bradfield€filed€interrogatories€and€a€request€for€productionÏof€documents€in€November€1995.€€The€record€does€not€reveal€that€the€œdefendants›€ever€respondedÏto€these€requests.€€After€the€œdefendants›€filed€their€summary€judgment€motion,€Bradfield€filed€anÏaffidavit€asserting€that€the€œdefendants›€failed€to€comply€with€his€discovery€requests.€€This€affidavitÏwas€in€effect€a€motion€to€compel€discovery,€under€Rule€37.01€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CivilÏProcedure.€€The€trial€court€did€not€rule€on€Bradfieldððs€assertion€that€the€œdefendants›€failed€toÏrespond€to€his€discovery€requests.€Ìà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€ð ð[l]awful€incarceration€brings€about€theÏnecessary€withdrawal€or€limitation€of€many€privileges€and€rights,€a€retraction€justified€by€theÏconsiderations€underlying€our€penal€system.ðð€€ò òòòPrice€v.€Johnstonó óóó,€334€U.S.€266,€œ285,›€68€S.Ct.Ï1049,€1060,€92€L.Ed.€1356€(1948).€€The€inmateððs€interest€in€pursuing€his€lawsuit€must€beÏweighed€against€the€institutional€concerns€of€the€prisons.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó€òòò òWolff€v.€McDonnelló óóó,€418€U.S.Ï539,€567„69,€94€S.Ct.€2963,€œ2980„81,€41€L.Ed.€935€(1974).›€€à àÌà àIn€œò òòòWhisnant€›€v.€Byrdó óóó,€525€S.W.2d€152€(Tenn.€1975),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏdiscussed€a€prisonerððs€right€to€pursue€civil€litigation:ÌÓÓà8 àWe€.€.€.€hold€that€a€prisoner€has€a€constitutional€right€to€institute€and€prosecute€aÏcivil€action€seeking€redress€for€injury€or€damage€to€his€person€or€property,€or€forÏthe€vindication€of€any€other€legal€right;€however,€this€is€a€òòqualified€óóand€òòrestrictedóóÏright.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€153€(emphasis€added).€€The€ò òòòWhisnantó óóó€Court€noted€the€danger€of€courts€and€wardens€beingÏð ðswamped€with€an€endless€number€of€unnecessary€and€even€spurious€œlawsuits.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€(quotingÏò òòòTabor€v.€Hardwickó óóó,€224€F.2d€526€(5th€Cir.€1955).›€Ìà àœA›€prisoner€pursuing€a€civil€lawsuit€may€conduct€œdiscovery,€but€the€discovery€is›€subject€toÏappropriate€limitations€imposed€by€the€trial€œcourt.€€The€scope€of€discovery€is€within€the€ð ðsoundÍdiscretion€of€the€trial€court.ðð€€ò òòòState,€Dept.€of€Commerce€&€Ins.€v.€Firsttrust€MoneyÏServices,€Inc.ó óóó,€931€S.W.2d€226,€230€(Tenn.€App.€1996);€ò òòòLoveall€v.€American€HondaÏMotor€Co.ó óóó,€694€S.W.2d€937,€939€(Tenn.€1985).€€€In€ò òòòBell€v.€Godinezó óóó,€92€C€8447,€1995€WLÏ519970€(N.D.Ill.€Aug.€30,€1995),€an€ÇOhio€district€court€considered€a€discovery€request€by€a€ò òòòpro€seó óóó€inmate€plaintiff€to€conduct€oralÏdepositions€of€prison€officials.€€The€court€held:ÌÓÓà8 àNo€doubt€a€prisoner€has€the€right€to€take€discovery,€but€that€right€does€notÏnecessarily€include€conducting€oral€depositions€of€prison€officials€if€there€areÏcompelling€reasons€weighing€against€such€depositions€and€if€the€prisoner€is€able€toÏobtain€the€necessary€information€by€written€discovery.ÌÌÓÓò òòòId.ó óóó€at€*2.€€The€court€found€that€the€prisoner€was€able€to€obtain€the€discovery€he€needed€throughÏð ðother,€less€problematic€meansðð€that€were€not€ð ðhighly€disruptive€of€prison€administration.ðð€€ò òòòId.;Ïsee€also€James€v.€Robertsó óóó,€163€F.R.D.€260,€261„62€(S.D.Ohio€1995)€(weighing€an€inmateððsÏrights€against€prison€administrative€concerns);€ò òòòHolt€v.€Pittsó óóó,€619€F.2d€558,€560„62€(6th€Cir.Ï1980)€(same).€€à àWe€find€that€it›€was€inappropriate€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€the€œdefendantsðð›Ïmotion€for€summary€judgment€without€considering€the€Plaintiffððs€request€that€the€trial€court€compelÏthe€œdefendants›€to€respond€to€his€discovery€requests.€€In€determining€the€discovery€to€which€theÏplaintiff€may€be€entitled,€the€trial€court€may€limit€the€discovery€to€that€which€is€pertinent€to€theÏDefendantððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€may€œweigh›€the€plaintiffððs€interests€against€theÏinstitutional€concerns€of€the€Correctional€Facility.€€The€trial€court€has€wide€discretion€to€fashionÏappropriate€limitations€on€the€scope€and€manner€of€the€discovery€in€this€case.Ìà àIn€sum,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€plaintiffððs€motions€for€default€judgment€is€affirmed.€ÏThe€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€the€œdefendants›€is€reversed.€€The€cause€isÏremanded€for€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€the€plaintiffððs€motion€to€compel€discovery,€and€theÏtrial€court€has€discretion€to€place€appropriate€limits€on€the€discovery€permitted.€€All€remainingÏissues€raised€by€the€plaintiff€on€appeal€are€without€merit.€€Ìà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€œin›€œpart,›€reversed€in€part,€and€remanded€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€Opinion.€€Costs€are€assessed€equally€against€Appellant€andÏAppellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue.€ÌÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ìó óà àò òÌCONCUR:Ìœ›Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€œJ.ó ó›