Harrison v. Nicholson
ORDER that the Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiff's Request for Deposition by Oral Examination Doc. 25 and the Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery Doc. [25-1 at 4] within 10 days of the entry of this Order. No extensions of time shall be granted except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances. (Responses due by 4/11/2021). Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/1/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (rhf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00244-MR
MARQUIS DECHANE HARRISON,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Deposition
by Oral Examination [Doc. 25] and Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery
[Doc. 25-1 at 4].
The incarcerated pro se Plaintiff filed the Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant Brandon Nicholson, an officer at the
Henderson County Jail, used excessive force against him on October 28,
2017. The deadline to complete discovery is April 5, 2021. [Doc. 17]. The
Plaintiff has filed a Request for Deposition by Oral Examination and Motion
for an Order Compelling Discovery, both of which were docketed on March
In the Request for Deposition by Oral Examination, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant “tailored” his Interrogatory response “for the betterment
of their1 position” and lied by claiming that he has no knowledge of the
incident and by denying the existence of video footage. [Doc. 25 at 3]. The
Plaintiff therefore seeks “an oral deposition by remote means recorded via
video or deposition by video conference,” which the Plaintiff states he will
arrange. [Doc. 25 at 3-4].
In his Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery, the Plaintiff asks the
Court to compel the Defendant to produce video footage of the incident which
the Plaintiff requested on January 26, 2020. [Doc. 25-1 at 4]. The Plaintiff
argues that the Defendant’s assertion that no such video exists is untrue
because documents that the Plaintiff obtained in discovery indicate that such
video was reviewed in response to the Plaintiff’s grievances regarding the
[Id. at 5].
In support of his motion, the Plaintiff submits
correspondence from Lieutenant Warren L. Bradley and Captain Todd W.
McCrain of the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office, which both refer to video
footage of the October 28, 2017 incident. [Doc. 25-2 at 2; 25-3 at 2].
The Defendant has not responded to either of the Plaintiff’s motions.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant shall respond to
the Plaintiff’s Request for Deposition by Oral Examination [Doc. 25] and the
It is unclear to whom this refers, as there is only one Defendant in this case.
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery [Doc. 25-1 at 4] within
ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. No extensions of time shall be
granted except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 1, 2021
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?