Mead v. Gaston County Police Department et al

Filing 139

ORDER denying 135 Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 06/16/2015. (jlk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12-CV-132

MICHAEL MEAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
GASTON COUNTY, REGINALD
BLOOM, individually and officially,
WILLIAM M. SAMPSON, individually
and officially, and CALVIN SHAW,
individually and officially,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Unredacted Discovery (Doc. No. 135) and Defendant Gaston County’s Response in Opposition
(Doc. No. 136). Plaintiff seeks the production of unredacted copies of files relating to complaints
made against Defendants Shaw, Bloom, and Sampson in their respective capacities as law
enforcement officers with the Gaston County Police Department. Plaintiff shows that those files
have been produced to him, but that they are “heavily redacted.” (Doc. No. 135 at 3). Notably,
“[t]he redacted information appears to include, but is not necessarily limited to, names of
complaintants and witnesses; addresses and locations of events; and case numbers of state court
documents that were publically filed.” (Id.)
Defendant Gaston County responds that the relevant portions of the information sought by
Plaintiff have been provided, and that “the only information withheld is individuals’ names and
other personally identifiable information.” (Doc. No. 136 at 2). Moreover, “[s]ome of the redacted
information contains names of minors as well as personal information into investigations regarding
1

allegations of sexual abuse.” (Id.) Indeed, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why this additional
information is relevant to his claims, or how the identities and personal information of particular
complaintants has any bearing on any claims or defenses asserted in this case, especially given the
sensitive nature of this information. As such, the Court finds that this information is not relevant
and Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 135) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 16, 2015

2