Dillard v. Underwood et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 5/1/2012. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
JAMES WESLEY DILLARD,
ADC #116862
v.

PLAINTIFF
3:11-cv-00293-JLH-JTK

T. J. UNDERWOOD, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 32). Defendants
filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. No. 33).
In his Motion, Plaintiff claims Defendants are withholding or altering evidence, and that the
DVDs requested by Plaintiff and provided by the Defendants do not accurately depict the events as
they occurred. In Response, Defendants state they provided answers to interrogatories and
documents in response to Plaintiff’s request for production, and that Plaintiff’s current motion
amounts to a disagreement over what the evidence shows. Defendants ask the Court to deny
Plaintiff’s Motion, based on the fact they have responded to all his requests.
Having reviewed the Motion, Response, and the discovery requests and responses, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied. Plaintiff acknowledges in his Motion that he received
the DVDs he requested; his dispute is that they do not depict the incidents accurately. He does not
provide any evidence that Defendants improperly altered the evidence and the Defendants deny this
accusation. Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity at trial in which to rebut the evidence as
shown on the DVDs. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 32) is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2012.

______________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE