Wright v. La. Department of Public Safety and Corrections et al

Filing 57

RULING granting in part 47 Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 04/15/2014. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHADWICK WRIGHT (#368195)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

LA. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, ET AL

NUMBER 13-342-JJB-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is the plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery
filed on February 14, 2014. Record document number 47. The motion
is opposed.1
On November 4, 2013, the plaintiff filed a request for
production of documents.2

Defendant responded to the discovery

requests.3
Plaintiff moved to compel responses to request for production
of documents numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7.
For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s motion to
compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part.

1

Record document number 48. Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Leave to Amend and Supplement Brief in Support of Motion to Compel
Discovery. Record document number 49. The motion was granted in
part.
Record document number 55, Ruling Motion to Supplement
Brief. Plaintiff’s Amended and Supplemental Brief in Support of
Motion to Compel Discovery, record document number 56, was
considered to the extent provided by the ruling.
2

Record document number 21.

3

Record document numbers 25, 26 and 27.

Request for Production of Documents Number 4
In request number 4, the plaintiff sought copies of the Camp
D Hawk Unit 1 & 2 Logbook entries for the month of March 2012.
Defendant objected arguing that the production of confidential
information concerning protection methodology could jeopardize the
safety of LSP officers and offenders.

Defendant produced a

redacted copy of the purportedly relevant portion of the Camp D
Hawk Unit Chemical Agent Logbook for March 15, 2012, the date of
the alleged incident.
Plaintiff
documents.

moved

to

Plaintiff

compel

argued

the

that

production
the

of

information

un-redacted
sought

is

relevant to establishing the amount of chemical agent sprayed on
him.

Plaintiff argued that the log books document the amount of

chemical agent in the cannister before and after it was used on
him.
Defendant opposed the plaintiff’s motion to compel re-urging
the argument made in response to the discovery request.

In

addition, the defendant further argued that the request is overly
broad and vague.

Defendant’s argument is persuasive only to the

extent that the defendant argued that the discovery request is
overly broad.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel a further response to request for
production of documents number 4 is granted in part.

Defendant

shall, within 14 days from the date of this ruling, produce an un-

2

redacted copy of the Camp D Hawk Unit Chemical Agent Logbook for
the period between March 1, 2012 through March 15, 2012.

In all

other respects, the motion to compel a response to request for
production of documents number 4 is denied.
Request for Production of Documents Number 5
In request number 5, the plaintiff sought copies of the Camp
D Hawk Unit 1 & 2 Logbook entries for March 15, 2012.
Defendant objected arguing that the production of confidential
information concerning protection methodology could jeopardize the
safety of LSP officers and offenders.

Defendant further argued

that the logbooks contain “various confidential matters” that would
compromise

security

functions

if

provided

to

an

offender.

Defendant produced a redacted copy of the purportedly relevant
portion of the Camp D Hawk Unit Logbook for March 15, 2012, the
date of the alleged incident.
Plaintiff
documents.

moved

to

Plaintiff

compel

argued

the

that

production
the

of

un-redacted

information

sought

is

relevant to establishing that Capt. Harriss assisted the defendant
in escorting the plaintiff onto the unit and then left after the
plaintiff was placed in the shower.
Defendant opposed the plaintiff’s motion to compel arguing
that the plaintiff was provided the relevant portion of the log
book.

Defendant’s argument is not persuasive.
Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel
3

a

response

to

request

for

production of documents number 5 is granted.

Defendant shall,

within 14 days from the date of this ruling, produce an un-redacted
copy of the Camp D Hawk Unit Logbook for the March 15, 2012.

Request for Production of Documents Number 6
In request number 6, the plaintiff sought copies of the Camp
D Hawk Unit 1 & 2 Shower Roster entries for the period between
March 14 and March 18, 2012.
Defendant objected arguing that the production of confidential
information concerning protection methodology could jeopardize the
safety of LSP officers and offenders.

Defendant further argued

that the logbooks contain “various confidential matters” that would
compromise

security

functions

if

provided

to

an

offender.

Defendant produced a redacted copy of the purportedly relevant
portion of the Camp D Hawk Unit Shower/Tier/Yard Roster for March
15, 2012, the date of the alleged incident.
Plaintiff

moved

to

responsive to his request.

compel

the

production

of

documents

Plaintiff argued that the information

sought will aid him in identifying witnesses to the incident.
Defendant opposed the plaintiff’s motion to compel arguing
that the plaintiff was provided the relevant portion of the shower
log.
A review of the defendant’s response showed that he produced
a redacted copy of the shower log for March 15, 2012.

The log

entries include the names of the inmates who were on the unit and
4

the times that each inmate was placed in and removed from the
shower.

Defendant’s response is sufficient.

Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

a

response

to

request

for

production of documents number 6 is denied.
Request for Production of Documents Number 7
In request number 7, the plaintiff sought copies of the Camp
D Hawk Orderly Roster for the month of March 2012.
Defendant objected arguing that the information sought is
irrelevant,

that

the

production

of

confidential

information

concerning protection methodology could jeopardize the safety of
LSP officers and offenders and the information requested contains
“confidential matters” that would compromise security functions if
provided to an offender.
Plaintiff
documents.

moved

to

compel

the

production

of

un-redacted

Plaintiff argued that the information sought will aid

him in identifying witnesses to the incident.
Defendant opposed the plaintiff’s motion to compel now arguing
that the documents sought are overly broad, vague and irrelevant.
Defendant’s argument is persuasive insofar as he argued that the
request is overly broad.
Plaintiff’s

motion

to

compel

a

response

to

request

production of documents number 7 is granted in part.

for

Defendant

shall, within 14 days from the date of this ruling, produce a copy
of the Camp D Hawk Unit Orderly Roster for March 15, 2012.
5

Defendant may redact the inmate numbers from the copy.

In all

other respects, the motion to compel a response to request for
production of documents number 7 is denied.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is
granted in part. Defendants shall, within 14 days, produce: (1) an
un-redacted copy of the Camp D Hawk Unit Chemical Agent Logbook for
the period between March 1, 2012 through March 15, 2012; (2)an unredacted copy of the Camp D Hawk Unit Logbook for the March 15,
2012; and (3) a copy of the Camp D Hawk Unit Orderly Roster for
March 15,

2012 (inmate numbers may be redacted).

In all other

respects, the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, April 15, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6