Evans v. Griffin et al

Filing 56

DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Compel.Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 12/1/2015. (GAI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAWN EVANS, 11-A-0681,
Plaintiff,
v.

DECISION AND ORDER
13-CV-805A

CORRECTION OFFICER M. BALMER et al.,
Defendants.
On May 4, 2015, plaintiff Shawn Evans (“Evans”) filed a motion to compel
discovery. (Dkt. No. 42.) Evans’s motion papers contain a document titled
“Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents,” bearing the date of September
21, 2014. (Dkt. No. 44 at 8–10.) This document does not seem to appear in the
docket anywhere, let alone as something that Evans filed around September 21,
2014. Nonetheless, Evans claims that he served it on defendants and never
received a response. (Dkt. No. 43 at 1.)
The September 21 document contains a number of requests. Evans
requests “any and all grievances” against defendants at Southport Correctional
Facility (“Southport”) since January 24, 2013 “concerning mistreatment of
inmates.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 8.) Defendants already have addressed any alleged
incident of January 24, 2013 as a fabrication. (Dkt. No. 19 at 3.) Evans requests
materials concerning Southport policies and practices with respect to the use of
force. Defendants already responded to this request. (Dkt. No. 31 at 6.) Evans

requests documents generated in response to certain grievances that he filed.
Evans also seeks documents including a recreation list, logbooks, misbehavior
reports, materials showing that he harmed defendants during any confrontations,
court documents involving defendants, and investigation materials from the
Inspector General’s office. Defendants’ Rule 26 disclosure of October 6, 2014
includes grievances, incident printouts, correspondence, internal movement
history, and logbooks. (See generally Dkt. No. 24.) The disclosure also includes
medical records. (See also Dkt. No. 36, filed manually under seal.)
Evans claims that he served certain interrogatories on or around
December 22, 2014 (Dkt. No. 44 at 12–13) and that defendants never
responded. In short, the interrogatories focus on which corrections officers were
stationed where at Southport on January 24, 2013; whether any reports were
written about the alleged incident; why defendants allowed Evans to be
assaulted; and why Evans did not receive medical attention that day.
Defendants responded to these interrogatories. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 32–35,
40, 41.)
In short, the requests in Evans’s pending motion seem to overlap with
discovery that defendants already have filed in the docket. Before concluding
that bad faith motivated these repetitive requests, the Court wants to rule out
innocuous reasons related to lost documents. Within 60 days of the date of this
Decision and Order, defendants will furnish Evans with an extra copy of Docket
2

Nos. 19–24, 31–35, 40, and 41, in a manner that has the docket number clearly
visible. Evans then will have 60 days to confirm whether any of his document
requests have been unanswered, either through production of documents or
through an objection. If Evans wishes to claim further that discovery is missing
then he must cite exact docket and page numbers to show why the discovery
produced so far is inadequate. Failure to explain, by precise docket and page
number, why the existing discovery is inadequate will be construed as bad faith.
Barring additional, good-faith motion practice related to discovery, the
Court considers discovery complete. For the sake of having a control date,
dispositive motions will be due on or before May 18, 2016.
For the reasons above, the Court grants Evans’s motion (Dkt. No. 42) in
part only to provide him with an extra copy of existing discovery as described
above. The Court denies Evans’s motion in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2015

__/s Hugh B. Scott______
__
HONORABLE HUGH B. SCOTT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3