Sutton v. VanLeeuwen et al

Filing 132

MINITE ORDER denying #130 Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure and Sanctions Regarding Gowin's Failure to Produce Video/Audio Recordings and Plaintiff's Sworn Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure and Sanctions Regarding Van Leeuwen's Failure to Produce Dash Camera Video Recordings, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/03/2015.(slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02379-RM-MJW
JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW VANLEEUWEN,
BRIAN GOWIN,
ANTHONY RODERICK, and
FRAN LAPAGE,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Sworn Motion for an Order Compelling
Disclosure and Sanctions Regarding Gowin’s Failure to Produce Video/Audio
Recordings (Docket No. 130, p.1) and Plaintiff’s Sworn Motion for an Order Compelling
Disclosure and Sanctions Regarding Van Leeuwen’s Failure to Produce Dash Camera
Video Recordings (Docket No. 130, p.2) are both DENIED.
Defendants’ obligation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) is to
produce all documents or other records in the party’s control that the party “may use to
support its claims or defenses.” If Defendants do not intend to use the videos in
question as evidence, they are not required to disclose them under Rule 26(a)(1). See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee's note to 2000 Amendments (“A party is no
longer obligated to disclose witnesses or documents, whether favorable or unfavorable,
that it does not intend to use.”). Defendants are required to disclose such evidence
pursuant to a proper discovery request under Rule 34, assuming the videos are
relevant and are in Defendants’ custody, possession, or control – but Rule 26(a)(1)
does not impose this duty.
Date: November 3, 2015