Proby v. Russell et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall submit the video evidence of record in Plaintiff's criminal trial, Case No. 13SF-CR00719, on or before June 26, 2016. Response to Court due by 6/26/2016.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 6/14/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE PROBY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRY RUSSELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14-cv-1620-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff George Proby’s Request for Subpoena (Doc.
No. 75). In that filing, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a subpoena for the video shown at
Plaintiff’s 2013 criminal trial in St. Francois County Circuit Court. Plaintiff reiterates the same
request in his pleading entitled “Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 82), which is in fact a sur-reply to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff
alleges that the video currently in the record, which was submitted by Defendants, has been
doctored in some way, or otherwise is inconsistent with the video shown at Plaintiff’s criminal
trial.
The Court will direct Defendants to submit the video evidence of record in Plaintiff’s
criminal trial, Case No. 13SF-CR00719, in order to compare it with the video currently in the
record. Defendants may obtain the video from the clerk of St. Francois County Circuit Court, #1
N. Washington, Farmington, Missouri 63640. Alternatively, if the video shown at Plaintiff’s
trial is not available from the St. Francois County Circuit Court but is a part of the file kept by
the Missouri Attorney General’s Office (“AG”), the Court directs Defendants to obtain the video

from the AG and file it with the Court. Defendants should also include an affidavit verifying that
the video submitted is the same video as that shown at Plaintiff’s criminal trial.
However, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s additional demands in the Request for
Subpoena, and will not order the trial transcript from Plaintiff’s criminal trial to be produced.
The Court is not convinced that, at this stage in the proceedings, the transcript of Plaintiff’s
criminal trial could in any way impact the legal issues presented in Plaintiff’s instant claim, or
the pending motion for summary judgment. The Court will reconsider the request should
Plaintiff’s case proceed past summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall submit the video evidence of record
in Plaintiff’s criminal trial, Case No. 13SF-CR00719, on or before June 26, 2016.

________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of June, 2016.

2