Clark v. Britton

Filing 14

Discovery Dispute Conference Order; counsel participated in a telephone discovery dispute conf w/ Judge Abel on 3/1/13. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 3/4/13. (sh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Misty Clark,

:
Plaintiff

Defendant

Judge Sargus

:

Ryan Britton,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-0980

:

v.

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

:

Discovery Dispute Conference Order
On March 1, 2013, counsel for the parties participated in a telephone discovery
dispute conference with the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Clark seeks two categories of
information: (1) the names of inmate who were questioned by investigators who were
investigating plaintiff’s allegation that defendant Britton raped her; and (2) Officer Britton’s
deployment dates.
Inmate names. Relying on ODRC Policy 07-ORD-03, defendants maintain that–even
if relevant to material disputed facts–plaintiff cannot obtain the names of other inmates
because she is a former inmate. ODRC Policy 07-ORD-03 provides, in relevant part: “An
inmate shall not be permitted to obtain information from the Record Office File of another
inmate or former inmate.” (http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/drc_policies.htm
Accessed March 1, 2013.) The Policy defines a “Record Office File” as
A four part file that contains copies of the official court documents and/or
other confidential information pertaining to an inmate’s institutional
adjustment. The file is maintained in OnBase under MF-Records Sections 1
through 4 and/or the Reception Center Record Office or any other secure
area designated by the Managing Officer at the institution Reception Centers.

Id.1
Defendants’ counsel also argue that because Ms. Clark originally gave the
investigators the inmate names, she doesn’t need to obtain them from defendants.
Plaintiff’s counsel responded that the investigation took place three years ago and Ms.
Clark does not now remember all the names she provided investigators. Defendants
further maintain that the inmate names will not lead to admissible evidence because most
of them could not recall any relevant information at the time they were interviewed by
investigators. Finally, defendants’ counsel said that plaintiff’s counsel may have access to
the Ohio State Highway Patrol investigative report.
I suggested that unredacted copies of the documents at issue be produced subject to
an attorneys’ eyes only protective order. Absent some substantial showing that the safety of
an inmate or former inmate would be jeopardized by the disclosure, a party suing state
actors cannot be deprived of access to discoverable evidence. It may be that Ms. Clark
would never have a need to learn the identity of the inmates who provided the information
to investigators. For example, plaintiff’s counsel might talk with them and determine they
had no information relevant to disputed material issues of fact. If an inmate was deposed,
plaintiff could assist her attorneys by telephone during the deposition and would not have
to learn the inmate’s identity.
Defendants’ counsel did not believe that resolution would protect her client’s and

1

I note that it would not appear from this definition that the investigators’ reports
here at issue would be part of the individual inmates’ Record Office Files.
2

the ODRC’s interests and requested an opportunity to brief the issue. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff file a motion to compel on or before March 8, 2013. Defendants
must file their memorandum in opposition on or before March 15. Any reply brief must be
filed on or before March 22, 2013.
Deployment dates. Plaintiff seeks Officer Britton’s deployment dates to determine
whether he voluntarily sought deployment overseas to cause this lawsuit to be stayed
during the deployment. Defendants maintain the information is not relevant to any issue in
this lawsuit. If plaintiff wants to address this issue, she should do so in her March 8 motion
to compel.

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

3