Kulhanek v. Griffith et al

Filing 77

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' request for an extension of two weeks to produce documents explaining why Plaintiff was placed in a camera cell is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants will be granted an extension of seven (7) days to either produce the outstanding documents or explain why those documents are irrelevant or should not be produced. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/6/2020. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRANDON KULHANEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CINDY GRIFFITH, et. al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-02431-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ reply memorandum (Doc. No. 76) to the
Court’s production order. (Doc. No. 75). On February 26, 2020, the Court ordered Defendants to
either produce the prison bed movement logs from February 21, 2017 through April 20, 2017, any
documents explaining why Plaintiff was placed in a camera cell, and the handheld and wing camera
footage of Plaintiff being searched from February 21, 2017 through November 31, 2017, or
respond as to why these materials should not be discoverable. In response to that order, Defendants
have served Plaintiff with his housing history for the relevant time periods, asked the Court for a
two-week extension to review documents related to Plaintiff’s placement in a camera cell, and
informed the Court that, due to Department of Corrections retention policies, there is no existing
video footage of Plaintiff’s cell and body searches.
The Court finds that Defendants have adequately responded to the Court’s order as to the
bed movement logs and camera footage. In regard to Defendants’ request for an extension to
produce the outstanding materials, the Court will grant the request in part and deny it in part. The
Court believes that an additional seven days is sufficient time for Defendants to either produce the
documents or explain to the Court why they should not be discoverable.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request for an extension of two weeks to
produce documents explaining why Plaintiff was placed in a camera cell is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Defendants will be granted an extension of seven (7) days to either produce
the outstanding documents or explain why those documents are irrelevant or should not be
produced.

Dated this March 6th, 2020.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2