Thurmond et al v. Byrd et al

Filing 92

ORDER denying 77 Motion for Order; denying 83 Motion to Compel; granting 87 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 1/20/09. (bkp)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W E S T E R N DIVISION S A M EDWARD THURMOND, SR. V. K A R L BYRD, et al. No. 4:08CV01792-BD DEFENDANTS P L A IN T IF F S ORDER P la in tif f has filed a motion for order (docket entry #77) and two motions to compel ( # 8 3 and #87). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion for order (#77) and his first m o tio n to compel (#83) are DENIED. Plaintiff's second motion to compel (#87) will be GRANTED. In the motion for order (#77) and the January 7, 2009 motion to compel (#83), P la in tif f requests that Defendants provide him with copies of video surveillance tapes f r o m certain cells within the Faulkner County Detention Facility ("FCDF") from August 1 1 , 2008, until August 18, 2008. Plaintiff states that he attempted to obtain the su rv e illa n c e videos from Defendants through discovery, but Defendants informed him th a t the videos were no longer available. Defendants have responded to Plaintiff's motions. In their response, Defendants e x p la in why the surveillance videos are no longer available for the dates Plaintiff re q u e ste d . Based upon Defendants' explanation, it appears that the video footage was not e ra se d or deleted in bad faith or in response to the filing of this lawsuit. Rather, the re c o rd in g systems used by the FCDF regularly "rolls over," recording over previously re c o rd e d footage, based on the limited storage capacity of the hard drive of the system. Because Defendants cannot produce evidence that no longer exists, Plaintiff's motion for o rd e r (#77) and his motion to compel (#83) are DENIED. In his motion to compel filed January 13, 2009 (#87), Plaintiff requests that D e f en d a n ts respond to outstanding discovery requests, including interrogatories and re q u e sts for admissions. Based upon Defendants' response, it appears that Defendants h a v e responded to Plaintiff's requests for production. However, Defendants do not state w h e th e r they have responded to Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admissions. Defendants are ordered to respond to any outstanding discovery within ten days of the d a te of this order and to file their responses with the Court. If Defendants have p re v io u s ly responded to all pending discovery, they should so notify the Court within ten d a ys of this order. Plaintiff's motion to compel (#87) is granted, this 20th day of January, 2009. ___________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?