Hopkins v. Reed et al

Filing 107

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants shall show cause why they have not provided the Plaintiff with copies of the Inspector General's Report and related documents that have been filed as public documents in this case ( Documents 79-6 (Defendant's Exhibit F) and 79-7 (Bate Stamped as pages 45-79, Hopkins v. Reed, et al.)), as previously directed by this Court, or notify the Court that said reports have been provided to the Plaintiff, no later than May 15, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion "Requesting the Honorable Court to Re-Address to the Defendants-Again, its Order Compelling Production of Documents" with regard to video footage (Doc. 96) is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 5/5/2015. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LARRY L. HOPKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHARLES REED, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:13 CV 126 ACL
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Presently pending is Plaintiff’s Motion “Requesting the Honorable Court to Re-Address to
the Defendants-Again, it’s Order Compelling Production of Documents.” (Doc. 96.)
Defendants have filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 99.) For the reasons
discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
I.

Background
On March 3, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel and directed

Defendants to file a Notice to the Court regarding the location of security cameras at SECC and
provide a diagram of SECC depicting Plaintiff’s travel during the incident at issue. (Doc. 83.)
Defendants filed in camera documents (Doc. 86) and a Notice (Doc. 87) in response to the Court’s
Memorandum and Order. In an Order dated March 19, 2015, the Court found that Defendants in
camera documents and Notice were deficient and directed Defendants to file an additional Notice
to the Court and in camera documents to correct the deficiencies. (Doc. 89.) Defendants filed
these supplemental documents on March 26, 2015. (Docs. 92, 93.) Plaintiff filed the instant
renewed motion to compel on March 27, 2015. (Doc. 96.)

Page 1 of 5

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
In his renewed motion to compel, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should be directed to

provide all relevant video footage and documents. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are trying
to “undermine the confidence of the court with their incorrect allegations set forth in their
Responses to compel order that was granted by the Honorable Court.” (Doc. 96 p. 3.) In their
Response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s assertions that they are trying to
undermine the confidence of the Court. Defendants contend that they have produced everything
within their possession.
The Court will discuss Plaintiff’s requests for video footage and reports separately.
II.A.

Video Footage

Plaintiff requests that Defendants provide all video camera footage related to the incident
at issue, including footage from the following locations: the entrance door over the exit sign, the
corridor outside the medical unit, in the “back upper far right interior surface,” the two cameras
inside the medical unit, and any other footage from Plaintiff’s trip from Housing Unit #5 to the
medical unit and then from the medical unit to Housing Unit #2. (Doc. 96 at 2.)
Defendants respond that there is no video footage other than what has already been
produced. Defendants cite the Affidavits of Richard Adams, Major at SECC; Defendant Charles
Reed; and CSI Travis Wilhite, Acting Major at SECC in support of their assertion that all video
footage that is presently available has been provided. Mr. Adams states in his Affidavit that there
was no video footage collected from inside the medical unit, because Plaintiff’s allegation was that
the alleged use of force occurred outside of the medical unit. (Doc. 87-1.) Mr. Reed testified in

Page 2 of 5

his Affidavit that there was a three-and-a-half minute gap in the video footage from the doorway
leading out of Housing Unit #1 and the central section of Housing Unit #2, because he and other
Defendants had to carry Plaintiff on a backboard and Plaintiff was struggling. (Doc. 92-1.) Mr.
Reed stated that they stopped at least twice on the trip from Housing Unit #1 to Housing Unit #2.
Finally, Defendants note that Mr. Wilhite testified in his Affidavit that each security camera
(DVR) maintains a maximum of twenty days of recording. (Doc. 92-3.) Mr. Wilhite stated that
when the DVR reaches maximum capacity it records over previous material. Id. Mr. Wilhite
testified that no video footage from inside the medical unit or outside the medical unit between
Housing Unit #1 and Housing Unit #2 was saved or is currently available from the incident at
issue. Id. Mr. Wilhite stated that all video footage that showed the alleged use of force incident
was collected, saved, and provided to the Inspector General’s office. Id.
Plaintiff has filed “Plaintiff’s Response to Affidavit of Defendant Charles Reed,” (Doc.
104) and “Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendants Affidavit, Submitted by, Travis Wilhite” (Doc.
105). With regard to Defendant Reed’s Affidavit, Plaintiff objects to Mr. Reed’s explanation
regarding the gap in video footage. Plaintiff also argues that there was a security camera in a
vestibule area near the medical unit that was removed since the incident at issue.
With respect to the Affidavit of Mr. Wilhite, Plaintiff again contends that there was a
security camera in the vestibule area that captured the incident at issue.
The Court has reviewed the record, including Plaintiff’s filings, the Affidavits submitted
by Defendants, and the in camera materials, and finds that the Defendants have provided all video
footage that is currently available and shows the alleged use of force incident at issue in this action.
That being said, the record of the case supports that additional relevant footage regarding the

Page 3 of 5

incident at issue in this case existed for a period of at least twenty days following the incident in
September 2012.

Following the incident, however, the Defendants preserved only the video

footage they believed was relevant to the incident. The Defendant naturally has a different view
of what video footage is relevant to the case, nevertheless, it is clear that such video footage no
longer exists. Thus, Plaintiff’s renewed Motion to Compel will be denied as to the requested
video footage.
II.B.

Documents

Plaintiff requests “all documents that are relevant to this present case, especially due to the
fact that none of the documents involves confidential informants’ identities, security issues or is
considered to be confidential and closed records pursuant to law.” (Doc. 96 at 3.)
Defendants respond that Plaintiff has on two occasions been provided with the opportunity
to review the Inspector General’s report and to make notes of anything contained therein. (Doc.
99 at 3.) Defendants further state that they produced their “use of force” statements to Plaintiff on
March 6, 2015, along with the relevant records from Plaintiffs medical file and the Affidavit of
Brennan Gibson that all of the video footage was collected, viewed, and was included with his
report. Id. Defendants further state that they have produced not only all of the video footage that
was available, but also the audio interviews that were conducted by the Inspector General. Id. at
3-4.
Other than video footage, the Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify the documents that
the Defendants have failed to produce. The Defendants admit that the Plaintiff has been allowed
to review the OIG report, however, reiterate that prison policies prevent them from providing a
copy to Plaintiff. In the event the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with copies of the

Page 4 of 5

Inspector General’s Report and related documents that have been filed in this case and identified as
Documents 79-6 (Defendant’s Exhibit F) and 79-7 (Bate Stamped as pages 45-79, Hopkins v.
Reed, et al.), the Defendants are in direct violation of this Court’s March 3, 2015 Order (Doc. 83 at
101) and they will be immediately ordered to produce copies of said documents for Plaintiff.
When the Defendants provide the Plaintiff with the aforementioned reports, there will be no
further evidence to produce.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants shall show cause why they have not
provided the Plaintiff with copies of the Inspector General’s Report and related documents that
have been filed as public documents in this case (Documents 79-6 (Defendant’s Exhibit F) and
79-7 (Bate Stamped as pages 45-79, Hopkins v. Reed, et al.)), as previously directed by this Court,
or notify the Court that said reports have been provided to the Plaintiff, no later than May 15, 2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion “Requesting the Honorable
Court to Re-Address to the Defendants-Again, it’s Order Compelling Production of Documents”
with regard to video footage (Doc. 96) is denied.
/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of May, 2015.

1 This Court’s prior Order directed the following: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Defendant’s shall immediately provide Plaintiff with a copy of all of the written reports in
Exhibits F and F-1 to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as Brennan
Gibson’s Affidavit (Bates Stamped 0085).
Page 5 of 5