Lovett v. Cole et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying 114 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 3/19/12. (mtw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
AT CINCINNATI
CIVIL CASE NO: 11-277-SAS-JGW
KELVIN LOVETT

PLAINTIFF

V.
OFFICER STEVEN COLE, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending now is a motion to compel filed by pro se plaintiff. Docs. 114. For the
following reasons, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff first asks the Court to compel defendants to provide use of force reports
pertaining to other inmates. Plaintiff contends the other inmates’ use of force reports will show
that defendants routinely falsify incident reports. However, as defendants note, plaintiff has not
adequately shown how the use of force reports pertaining to other inmates are directly relevant to
this action. Among other things, plaintiff has not shown how the defendants in this case are
directly involved in the situations which occasioned the reports pertaining to other inmates. In
addition, use of force reports may contain confidential or security-sensitive information,
including medical information and witness statements, which should not be disclosed to other
inmates. Indeed, applicable Ohio prison regulations prevent inmates from obtaining information
from the files of other inmates. See Doc. 117-4. Even though the other inmates have
purportedly given plaintiff consent to obtain incident reports pertaining to them, the motion to
compel will be denied.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to compel defendants to provide prison regulations, conduct

1

reports and Rules Infraction Board (“RIB”) records. Defendants’ response shows that they have
provided the reports, regulations and RIB records pertaining to the incident which gave rise to
this action. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that any additional materials are
relevant, nor has plaintiff shown an entitlement to additional reports, rules, etc.
Plaintiff next asks for color copies of certain photographs. Defendants assert that only
black and white photos exist and those photos have been provided to plaintiff. Plaintiff has not
demonstrated an entitlement to non-existent color photographs. Similarly, plaintiff again
requests a higher-quality, slowed-down version of a video of the incident giving rise to this
action. Plaintiff’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, defendants contend that the only
available video footage has been provided to plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown that defendants
have altered any relevant audio, video or photographic media. This aspect of the motion to
compel will be denied.
In short, the Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff has been provided all the relevant
materials to which he is entitled. The motion to compel will be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. 114] is denied.
This the 19th day of March, 2012.

s/ J. Gregory Wehrman
J. Gregory Wehrman
United States Magistrate Judge

2