Mann v. Williams et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Motion to Compel filed by Anthony L Mann. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 4/2/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony L. Mann,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Captain C. Williams; Captain Rhonda Abston, )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:14-1647-RMG-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, Anthony L. Mann, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the named defendants. This matter is before the court on Mann’s
motion to compel (ECF No. 46). For the reasons discussed below, Mann’s motion is granted in part
and denied in part.
Except as further discussed hereinbelow, the defendants’ objections to Mann’s discovery
requests are sustained.
The remaining objections pertain to Mann’s Request for Production No. 8. As previously
explained by the court, Mann alleges that the defendants used excessive force and were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs regarding an incident in which Mann was sprayed with chemical
munitions. Mann filed a motion to compel which, in relevant part, sought an order compelling the
defendants to produce a copy of the relevant portion of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections policy that details the steps required to decontaminate a prisoner who has been exposed
to chemical munitions. (ECF No. 46 at 4-5.) The defendants objected to this production on the
bases that the request “is vague and ambiguous as written,” “is neither relevant to a claim or defense
in this action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” and “is
Page 1 of 3

overly broad and therefore unduly burdensome,” and object to the request to the extent “it seeks
information or documents not in the possession, custody or control of Defendants,” and to the extent
“the information requested by [Mann] is restricted, as its production would jeopardize the safety of
the officers and staff at SCDC, and would impede on their ability to maintain proper order within
SCDC’s institutions.” (See Pl.’s Request for Prod. No. 8, ECF No. 49-1.)
The court directed the defendants to provide legal authority for their objections to Mann’s
request, specifically including the basis for their contention that production of the decontamination
portions of the policy presents a security risk, as well as to produce any documents responsive
Request for Production No. 8 to the court for in camera review.
In response, the defendants provided the court with excerpts of the “Use of Force” policy.
The defendants reiterate that this policy is not in their possession or control (although they produced
it to the court, so it clearly is now) and argue that as a restricted policy “it contains information that
is highly sensitive in nature and directly involves the security of SCDC and its institutions.” (ECF
No. 65 at 3.) With regard to the Use of Force policy, the defendants specifically argue as follows:
Disclosure of this policy could impede the SCDC’s staff’s ability to maintain proper
order within SCDC institutions. Specifically, any knowledge of the policy and its
contents could be used by Plaintiff, or any other inmate, to tailor their actions in
concert with the Use of Force policy. As such, it jeopardizes the security of the
institution, its officers, and their ability to enforce the policy and maintain proper
order within the institution.
(Id.) The defendants also rely on an unsigned affidavit from a state court civil action, arguing in
pertinent part, that “[t]he information within the Use of Force policy is classified in that it identifies
the minutest specifics as to the force continuum to include identifying the responsive levels of
control resulting from various levels of resistance from inmates.” (Id. at 4.) Finally, the defendants

Page 2 of 3

argue that as a frequent filer of these types of actions and with Mann’s alleged history, “[a]llowing
Plaintiff to access or view the Use of Force policy, even if limited to just the decontamination
portions, would permit him to use this knowledge to his advantage in the future and potentially share
it with other inmates.” (Id.)
Upon review of the portions of the policy produced for in camera review and the parties’
arguments, the court sustains the defendants’ objections in part based on the defendants’ assertion
of security concerns. However, the court finds that the text of the decontamination portion of the
policy at issue, specifically, OP-22.01 § 6.5, is relevant to Mann’s claims and does not implicate any
of the security concerns raised by the defendants. (ECF No. 80) (in camera submission) (access
restricted). Because the excerpt is brief, rather than requiring the defendant to produce a redacted
version of the policy to Mann, the court will issue a supplemental order quoting the relevant two
sentences of the policy after the expiration of the time permitted by applicable law to appeal this
order to the district judge, assuming no appeal is filed. If applicable, Mann may refer to the excerpt
in any legal filings in this case by citing to the forthcoming Order.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
April 2, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 3 of 3