Evans v. Capps et al

Filing 179

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 153 Motion to Request Introduction of Evidence in Defendant's Custody and granting in part and denying in part 154 Motion to Introduce Evidence in Court Custody. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 10/19/2017. Copy sent via US Mail to George Reynold Evans via US Mail to 4600 Swamp Fox Hwy West, Tabor City, NC 28463. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CONSOLIDATED ACTION
GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CAPPS, et al.,
Defendants.
GEORGE R. EVANS
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL GROOM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 7:15-CV-252-BO

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 7:17-CV-4-BO

ORDER
On August 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions entitled "Motion to Request Introduction of
Evidence in Defendants' Custody." [DE-153, -154]. The motions appear to be identical in all
respects. According to his motions, Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that is in the custody and
control of the Attorney General which Plaintiff contends he is unable to possess because of his
incarcerated status. Plaintiff would like to introduce all video from the North Carolina State
Highway Patrol (NCSHP) and the Columbus County Sheriffs Department and all audio from the
State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and NCSHP internal investigations. Plaintiff argues that while
he is not allowed to have this information because it is considered contraband he asks for an
arrangement be made with the Attorney General's office so that he may review this evidence.

Defendants Capps, Richardson and Weissinger ("SHP Defendants") have provided Plaintiff
with copies of four videos as part of their initial disclosures and provided all audio recordings in their
custody with their supplemental discovery responses. [DE-155]. SHP Defendants also appear to
have included requested video and audio recordings with their motion for summary judgment. See
[DE-178-2 through DE-178-3]. SHP Defendants' counsel have also sent another copy of the videos
\

to the superintendent of the facility where Plaintiff is housed with instructions to permit Plaintiff to
view the videos and for Plaintiffto sign a verification that he reviewed the videos which is to be filed ,
with the court. According to SHP Defendants, Plaintiff has already reviewed the audio recordings
and filed a verification to that effect. [DE-152] at 2. SHP Defendants do not have custody or control
of video from Columbus County Sheriffs Department.
The remaining defendants respond they do not have custody or control over materials
provided to, obtained by, or maintained by the SBI, nor do they have any control over what Plaintiff
is permitted to review while incarcerated. [DE-156].
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' motions are denied to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling production for the reasons that the materials over which any defendant has custody or
control appear to have been produced and the motion is therefore moot. To the extent Plaintiffs
motions seek an order from the court as to the admissibility of such materials into evidence the
motions are denied without prejudice for the reasons that such a request is premature and without
proper legal foundation.
So ordered, the 19th day of October 2017.

2