Coleman v. Danforth, et al

Filing 141

ORDER denying 135 Motion to Compel and 136 Motion for Sanctions. In addition, the Court lifts the stay on the dispositive motion deadline. Parties shall have through and including March 22, 2018 to file motions for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 02/20/2018. (jlh) Modified on 2/20/2018 (jlh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
COREY LEWIS COLEMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WILLIAM DANFORTH, Warden, Telfair
)
State Prison; SAM ZANDERS, Deputy
)
Warden, Telfair State Prison; LT. RODNEY )
MCCLOUD, Unit Manager, Telfair State
)
Prison; LIEUTENANT WILCOX, Telfair
)
State Prison, SERGEANT JORDAN)
THOMAS, Telfair State Prison; SERGEANT )
TAYLOR, Telfair State Prison; OFFICER
)
BELL, Cert. Officer, Telfair State Prison;
)
JOHN DOE, Cert. Officer, Telfair State
)
Prison; JILL CRAVEY, Nurse, Telfair State )
Prison; and DR. CHANEY, Telfair State
)
Prison,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 316-095

ORDER
_________
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Hancock State Prison in Sparta, Georgia, commenced
the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events alleged to have
occurred at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions. (Doc.
nos. 135, 136.)

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment claims for failure to protect against Defendants

Danforth, Wilcox, Zanders, McCloud, Jordan-Thomas, Taylor, Bell, and John Doe, Eighth
Amendment claims for denial of medical care against Defendants Cravey and Dr. Chaney, a
First Amendment retaliatory transfer claim against Defendant Danforth, and Fourteenth
Amendment Claims for administrative segregation without a hearing against Defendants
Danforth, Zanders, and McCloud. (See doc. no. 43.) On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed his
first motion to compel, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. nos. 112,
125.) The Court ordered Defendants to supplement their discovery responses within fourteen
days of its November 15, 2017 Order. (Doc. no. 125.)
Plaintiff filed his second motion to compel and a motion for sanctions on January 5,
2018. (Doc. nos. 135, 136.) Plaintiff seeks production of documentary evidence in response
to six discovery requests, and asks the Court to sanction Defendants for failure to produce the
requested evidence sooner.

(Id.)

He argues he has repeatedly conferred with defense

counsel to no avail, and Defendants have “willfully acted with conscious indifference” to the
Court’s Order compelling discovery. (Id.) Defendants contend they have produced all
documents required by the Court’s November 15th Order. (Doc. nos. 138, 139.)

2

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . . Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible, Republic of
Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1189 (11th Cir. 2013), and “[w]hen there is a doubt over
relevancy, the court should still permit discovery,” Coker v. Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682,
685 (M.D. Ala. 1998).

However, “the Court obviously cannot compel production of

documents that do not exist” and “is generally entitled to rely on representations made in
discovery requests and responses.” Hunter v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. CV 314-035, 2015
WL 5042245, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2015) (internal citations omitted).
A discovery motion must “include the specific ground for the motion or objection”
and “may not be made generally.” Loc. R. 26.5(b)-(c). Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy
this requirement because of its generalities. Nevertheless, despite this deficiency, the Court
addresses each of Plaintiff’s disputed requests on the merits in turn below.
1. Request for defendant Jordan-Thomas to produce the video footage
from the state camera #329472 that she operated during this incident
on July 15, 2013. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1. Interrogatory no. 6(b) p.
37).
2. Request for defendant Bell to produce the video footage from the
state camera #329502 that he operated during this incident on July 15,
2013. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1. Interrogatory no. 6(b) p. 41).
3

3. Request for defendants Danforth, et al. to produce copies of all
audio and video recordings/footage concerning incident on July 15,
2013. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1. Interrogatory no. 9 p. 12 and
Interrogatory no. 10 p. 13).
As noted in the Court’s November 15th Order, Defendants produced five videos in
response to Plaintiff’s requests. (Doc. no. 124, pp. 8, 11.) Moreover, Defendants aver they
“have produced all relevant surveillance footage of Plaintiff in their possession, custody, and
control. Defendants are not in possession, custody, or control of additional surveillance
footage of Plaintiff beyond what was already provided to him.” (Doc. no. 138, p. 4.) The
Court is entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations, and it cannot compel Defendants to
produce video recordings that do not exist. See Hunter, 2015 WL 5042245, at *2 (“[T]he
Court obviously cannot compel production of documents that do not exist [and] is generally
entitled to rely on representations made in discovery requests and responses.”) (internal
citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to
Request Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
4. Request for defendant Wilcox to produce diagrams that depicts
cafeteria, recreation yard, the area in front of D and E Buildings, EBuilding quietroom, and Administrative Segregation cell E-2 #123
which are all relevant scenes. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1. Interrogatory
no. 4 p. 29 and Interrogatory no. 8 p. 30).
As noted in the Court’s November 15th Order, “Plaintiff does not explain why
schematics would provide relevant information not apparent from the video recordings
themselves. In addition, Defendant has stated a valid concerning regarding the security
4

implications of providing prison schematics to inmates.”

(Doc. no. 124, p. 10.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to Request No. 4.
5. Request for defendant Cheney to produce x-rays films, images, and
all radiographic records from plaintiff’s medical records. (See doc.
no. 113-1, Ex. 1. Interrogatory no. 14 p. 48 and Request for Admission
no. 5 p. 14).
As an initial matter, Plaintiff did not previously seek to compel nor did the Court
order Defendant Cheney to produce x-rays and all radiographic records from Plaintiff’s
medical records. (See doc. nos. 112, 125.) Moreover, Defendants aver they “have already
provided Plaintiff’s relevant medical records to him, which include reports, or
interpretations, of x-rays that Plaintiff received between 2010 and 2014. Defendants are not
in possession of Plaintiff’s original radiographic films.” (Doc. no. 138, p. 5.) The Court is
entitled to rely on Defendants’ representations, and it cannot compel Defendants to produce
x-rays and radiographic records that do not exist. See Hunter, 2015 WL 5042245, at *2
(“[T]he Court obviously cannot compel production of documents that do not exist [and] is
generally entitled to rely on representations made in discovery requests and responses.”)
(internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel as
to Request No. 5.

5

6. Request for defendants Danforth, et al. to produce GDC policies
SOP II B02-0001, II C02-0002, II C02-0004, II A07-0005, and II A080001. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1. Interrogatory no. 2 p. 20, no. 3 p. 20,
no. 5 p. 25, no. 2 p. 41).
Plaintiff did not seek copies of these policies in his original interrogatories and
requests for production to Defendants, but rather by letter. (See doc. nos. 113-1, 113-3.) As
this Court previously held, it “cannot compel production of discovery Plaintiff never
formally requested.” (Doc. no. 125, p. 16) (citing James v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc., 240
F.R.D. 693, 695 (S.D. Fla. 2006)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to
compel as to Request No. 6.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions for the alleged deficiencies in Defendants’ answers to his
interrogatories and requests for production.

As discussed above, none of Defendants’

responses were deficient. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions.
(Doc. no. 136.)
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion to

Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. nos. 135, 136.) In addition, the Court
LIFTS the stay on the dispositive motion deadline. The parties shall have through and

6

including March 22, 2018 to file motions for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

7