Hensley v. Chaffin et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting in part 59 Motion to Make Disclosure, 61 Supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery and 62 Motion to Compel Production of Documents, such that, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the defendants shall provide to the plaintiff, and file with the Court, (1) a certified copy of excerpts from the tier logbooks for Cuda 3 Unit and Cuda 4 Unit at Camp J at LSP for the date 05/28/2012, and (2) a certified copy of the tier rosters (redacted if appropriate) id entifying the inmates housed on Cuda 3 Unit and Cuda 4 Unit at Camp J at LSP for the date 05/28/2012 The plaintiff's 68 Motion for Sanctions and the defendant's corresponding request for reimbursement of reasonable expenses be and they are hereby DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr on 07/01/2014. (CGP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DONALD HENSLEY, JR. (#112218)

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
LT. CHAFFIN, ET AL.

NO. 13-0280-SDD-RLB

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to Make Disclosure (Rec.
Doc. 59), Supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery (Rec. Doc. 61), Motion to Compel
Production of Documents (Rec. Doc. 62), and Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 68). These
motions are opposed.
In the instant motions, the plaintiff first contends that certain documentation has not been
provided to him in response to Request No. 1 of his Request for Production of Documents (Rec.
Doc. 45), which Request was directed to defendant Spencer Perkins and requested a copy of
excerpts from the defendant’s Cuda 4 Unit logbook for the date May 28, 2012. In response to this
Request, defendant Perkins responded that the requested documentation had already been
provided to the plaintiff, specifically at Rec. Doc. 16-1, pp. 17-18. See Rec. Doc. 52. After some
initial confusion on the plaintiff’s part whether he was in possession of the referenced documents,
the plaintiff now apparently acknowledges that he is in possession of same, and he apologizes for
his confusion in this regard. See Rec. Doc. 68 at p. 3. He asserts, however, that the
documentation referred to by the defendant is not responsive to his Request No. 1. Specifically,
whereas he requested excerpts from the tier logbook for Cuda 4 Unit at Camp J at LSP on May
28, 2012, i.e., the Unit to which defendant Perkins was assigned on that date, the referenced

documentation appears instead to be excerpts from the tier logbook for the Cuda 3 Unit, which
was manned by defendant Lucian Chaffin on that date. Upon a finding by the Court that the
plaintiff’s contentions in this regard appear to have potential merit and that, in any event, a
clarification of the record is justified in this regard,1 the Court will direct the defendants to
provide to the plaintiff certified copies of excerpts from the tier logbooks for BOTH Cuda 3 Unit
and Cuda 4 Unit at Camp J at LSP for the date May 28, 2012.

1. There is substantial ambiguity in the documentation filed in this proceeding regarding
where certain events pertinent to the issues herein took place. For example, it appears clear that
the plaintiff was in fact housed on the Cuda 4 Left Unit at Camp J at LSP on May 28, 2012, that
defendant Spencer Perkins was supervising the plaintiff’s Cuda 4 Left tier at the time of the
incident, and that defendant Lucian Chaffin was supervising an adjacent tier, Cuda 3. See, e.g.,
Rec. Doc. 26 at p. 4 and Rec. Doc. 54-1. It further appears that defendant Chaffin was escorting
the plaintiff and a co-inmate to the exercise yard at the time of the referenced incident.
However, subsequent events become more clouded. An Unusual Occurrence Report prepared by
defendant Chaffin on the date of the incident reflects that the incident complained of happened
on Cuda 3 and that defendant Chaffin thereafter placed the plaintiff in the shower cell,
presumably at that location. See Rec. Doc. 16-1 at pp. 23-24. See also id. at p. 25 (Unusual
Occurrence Report prepared by Capt. Marcus Callahan, referring to the incident as having
occurred on Cuda 3). Cf., Rec. Doc. 36 (wherein defendant Chaffin asserts that he is “unable to
specifically recall” whether the incident occurred on Cuda 3 or Cuda 4). In addition, responses
provided by defendant Chaffin to the plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 6 make reference to
the incident as having occurred on Cuda 3. See Rec. Doc. 26. Finally, the logbook excerpts
which have been produced by the defendants appear to bear defendant Chaffin’s name at the top
(suggesting that these excerpts relate to Cuda 3, not Cuda 4), see Rec. Doc. 16-1 at pp. 17-18,
and these excerpts reflect that the plaintiff was provided with medical attention on that tier at
11:15 a.m. on May 28, 2012. See id. Notwithstanding the foregoing ambiguities, the defendants
have nonetheless contended that “[i]t is undisputed that the incident giving rise to this suit
occurred on the Cuda 4 Left tier,” see Rec. Doc. 65 at p. 4, that documentation pertaining to
Cuda 3 is irrelevant to this proceeding, id., and that “[i]t is undisputed that the plaintiff was
evaluated by medical personnel on Cuda 4 on May 28, 2012, see Rec. Doc. 63 at p. 4. Whereas
the above-noted discrepancies may be explained by defendant Perkins’ assertion that, in certain
of the documentation, “the location of the incident ... is incorrectly identified,” see Rec. Doc. 63
at p. 3, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to a review of the pertinent documentation from both
tiers in order to confirm or dispute these assertions. Further, it does not appear that any
documentation has been produced which relates to logbook entries made by defendant Spencer
Perkins.

The plaintiff next complains regarding the failure of the defendants to provide him with
copies of the tier rosters showing the identities of inmates confined on the Cuda 3-Left and Cuda
4-Left Units at Camp J at LSP on May 28, 2012. The defendants have responded that the
requested documentation is irrelevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. The defendants also contend that the requested documentation is
confidential under La. R.S. 15:574.12, that it cannot be released without written authorization
from each offender, and that disclosure of same would result in a “breach of security.”
The defendants’ contentions are without merit. Clearly, the tier rosters which reflect
merely the identities of inmates housed in the cells on the respective tiers where events pertinent
to this lawsuit may have occurred, and who may have knowledge regarding the events alleged, is
discoverable relative to the plaintiff’s claims. Further, the defendants have not shown that
disclosure of the rosters on a single date would present a potential threat to security, or that the
referenced documents fall within the purview of La. R.S. 15:574.12, or are otherwise confidential
under federal law. See, e.g., Zantiz v. Seal, 2013 WL 2459269, *5 (E.D. La. June 6, 2013)
(recognizing that “[s]pecial caution should be exercised in recognizing a privilege in a civil rights
case because ‘application of the federal law of privilege, rather than state law, in civil rights
actions is designed to ensure that state and county officials may not exempt themselves from the
very laws which guard against their unconstitutional conduct by claiming that state law requires
all evidence of their alleged wrongdoing to remain confidential’”) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the Court will direct the defendants to provide to the plaintiff the referenced
documentation. The defendants are advised, however, that they may redact from the referenced
documents any personal information which may be present that is properly subject to redaction,
e.g., social security numbers and the like.

Finally, the plaintiff complains that certain responses provided by the defendants to his
discovery requests are false and/or incomplete, and therefore justify the imposition of sanctions,
notably (1) defendant Perkins’ implicit representation to the plaintiff, in responding to the
plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 1, that the documents produced at Rec. Doc. 16-1, pp. 1718, are copies of excerpts from “Sgt. Spencer Perkins log-book Cuda-4 on May 28, 2012,” see
Rec. Doc. 52, as requested in the referenced Request for Production, (2) defendant Perkins’
responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 9, see Rec. Doc. 64, which the plaintiff
asserts are false and should be deemed admitted by the Court, and (3) defendant Perkins’ response
to Interrogatory No. 6, see Rec. Doc. 63, relative to where the plaintiff was located when he
received medical attention on May 28, 2012. However, in light of the confusion noted above, see
note 1, supra, the Court is unwilling and unable to determine whether the referenced responses
are false and/or intentionally misleading as represented by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court
will deny this aspect of the plaintiff’s Motion, deferring to the plaintiff the right to point out the
asserted falsities in impeaching the credibility of the witnesses at trial and deferring to the
plaintiff the right to seek further relief at a later time. The Court also denies the defendants’
corresponding request for reimbursement of their reasonable expenses incurred in responding to
the plaintiff’s motions. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Make Disclosure (Rec. Doc. 59),
Supplemental Motion to Compel Discovery (Rec. Doc. 61), and Motion to Compel Production of
Documents (Rec. Doc. 62) be and they are hereby GRANTED IN PART, such that, within
fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the defendants shall provide to the plaintiff, and file
with the Court, (1) a certified copy of excerpts from the tier logbooks for Cuda 3 Unit and Cuda 4
Unit at Camp J at LSP for the date May 28, 2012, and (2) a certified copy of the tier rosters

(redacted if appropriate) identifying the inmates housed on Cuda 3 Unit and Cuda 4 Unit at Camp
J at LSP for the date May 28, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 68)
and the defendants’ corresponding request for reimbursement of reasonable expenses be and they
are hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 1, 2014.

s

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE