Whiteside v. White et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 23 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 07/05/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16-cv-288-FDW
GERALD WHITESIDE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SUSAN WHITE,
)
WILLIAM REED,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, (Doc.
No. 23), filed on June 14, 2017, regarding his right to view a video related to the alleged
excessive force incident in this matter. In support of his motion to compel, Plaintiff complains
that: (a) he was unable to view the video provided in discovery a second time; (b) he was not
allowed to take notes during the viewing of the video; and (c) he believes that Defendant Reed
has other videos or better copies of the video provided.
In response to the motion to compel, Defendant notes that Plaintiff signed a form,
confirming that he was permitted to view the video and dated April 11, 2017 (See Doc. No. 214: Ex. D to Defendant’s Response to Motion to Compel). Defendant further states that he does
not have other copies of videos or a better copy of the video provided. Counsel for Defendant
states that, in order to address Plaintiff’s other contentions regarding his ability to view the
video, counsel will direct the superintendent of the facility where Plaintiff is currently housed to,
on or before July 15, 2017, allow Plaintiff to view the video again and take notes.

1

Based on Defendant’s response, the Court will deny the motion to compel at this time,
but if Plaintiff is not permitted to view the video again and take notes by July 15, 2017, counsel
shall so advise the Court, and the Court will take further appropriate action at that time.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling
Discovery, (Doc. No. 23), is DENIED.

Signed: July 5, 2017

2