Rogers v. Brouk et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for the Court to Order Defendants to Submit Copies of Their Deposition Transcripts to Plaintiff is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for the Court to Order t he Defendants and their Counsel to Return to the Plaintiff Original Documents Sent With Initial Disclosures [#26], Plaintiff's Motion to take Recorded Depositions of Non-Party Staff Witnesses and All Defendants [#27], Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Order Potosi or Their Agent to Allow Plaintiff to Review Video and the Use of Force Report [#29], and Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Order the Defendants to Produce Documents [#35] are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/9/2017. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
COREY JEMELL ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN BROUK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-cv-1088 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are five motions [#26, #27, #29, #34, #35] by the plaintiff Corey
Rogers.1 Each motion has been responded to by the defendants. The Court will address
the motions chronologically.
I.

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order the Defendants and their
Counsel to Return to the Plaintiff Original Documents Sent With
Initial Disclosures [#26] and Plaintiff’s Motion to take Recorded
Depositions of Non-Party Staff Witnesses and All Defendants [#27]

Plaintiff moves the Court to order the defendants to return plaintiff’s original
documents that were sent with plaintiff’s initial disclosures. As this Court understands,
the defendants returned those documents to the plaintiff on December 9, 2016 [#28 pg. 2
¶ 3]. Therefore, that part of plaintiff’s motion denied as moot.
Plaintiff moves the Court to take recorded depositions of non-party staff witnesses
and all defendants [#27]. The Court finds plaintiff’s motion substantially similar, if not
identical, to plaintiff’s motion to take deposition of non-party staff [#21]. For the same
1

The Court is not addressing Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order the defendants or their agents to produce
documents or allow the plaintiff to inspect them [#37] at this time.

reasons as the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to take deposition of non-party staff,
plaintiff’s motion to take recorded depositions of non-party staff witnesses [#27] is
denied. First, there is no provision in the Rules for the taking of a tape-recorded
deposition without a court reporter. Second, because plaintiff is indigent and proceeding
pro se, the motion will be denied unless plaintiff pays in advance for the services of the
court reporter in addition to copying and all other fees associated with taking a
deposition.
II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order Potosi or Their Agent to
Allow Plaintiff to Review Video and the Use of Force Report [#29]

Plaintiff moves the Court to order Potosi or their agent to allow plaintiff to review
the incident video in addition to reviewing the use of force report. Defendants responded
to plaintiff’s motion [#33]. Defendants argue that plaintiff had access to view the video
and use of force report at the Litigation Coordinator’s convenience and never requested
to view this material before filing the instant motion. Further, it is this Court’s
understanding that defendants’ counsel allowed plaintiff to view the incident video and
use of force report on December 22, 2016 when defendants deposed plaintiff. Plaintiff’s
motion [#29] is denied as moot.
III.

Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order Defendants to Submit Copies
of Their Deposition Transcripts to Plaintiff [#34] and Plaintiff’s
Motion for the Court to Order the Defendants to Produce Documents
[#35]

Plaintiff moves the Court to order the defendants to submit copies of their
deposition transcripts to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion [#34] was filed on December 15,
2016. It is this Court’s understanding that plaintiff was deposed by the defendants on
2

December 22, 2016. Thus, plaintiff’s motion, when filed, was premature. However, to
the extent that plaintiff’s deposition was taken by the defendants as planned, plaintiff is
entitled to copies of the deposition transcripts. Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to order
defendants to submit copies of their deposition transcripts to plaintiff is granted [#34].
Finally, plaintiff moves this Court produce the following documents:
(1) Grievances, complaints, or other documents received by Cindy Griffith or her
agents received from January 2015 until May 2016 concerning the
mistreatment of inmates by defendants Steven Brouk, John Layton, and Donald
Hale.
(2) Any disciplinary actions taken against defendants Steven Brouk, John Layton,
and Donald Hale by Cindy Griffith or her agents from the start of these
defendants being employed by the Department of Corrections until December
12, 2016, in addition to producing the reports of said disciplinary actions.
(3) Any and all policies, directives, or instructions to staff concerning strip
searches.
Defendants responded [#36], arguing that the requests in this motion are substantively
different than the documents he requested in his Request for Production. Further,
defendants argue that plaintiff did not confer with the defendants’ counsel prior to filing
the instant motion. Local Rule 37-3.04(A) states that “The Court will not consider any
motion relating to discovery and disclosure unless it contains a statement that movant’s
counsel has conferred in person or by telephone with the opposing counsel in good faith
or has made reasonable efforts to do so, but that after sincere efforts to resolve their
dispute, counsel are unable to reach an accord.” Plaintiff failed to meet or confer with
defendants’ counsel prior to filing the instant motion and thus violated Local Rule 373.04(a). This requirement is especially important in view of defendants’ several

3

substantial objections to plaintiff’s discovery and document production requests.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents [#35] is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Court to Order
Defendants to Submit Copies of Their Deposition Transcripts to Plaintiff is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order the
Defendants and their Counsel to Return to the Plaintiff Original Documents Sent With
Initial Disclosures [#26], Plaintiff’s Motion to take Recorded Depositions of Non-Party
Staff Witnesses and All Defendants [#27], Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order
Potosi or Their Agent to Allow Plaintiff to Review Video and the Use of Force Report
[#29], and Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Order the Defendants to Produce
Documents [#35] are DENIED.
So ordered this 9th day of January, 2017.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4