Butler v. Durant
Filing
61
ORDER denying 48 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 01/27/2015.(dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
) C/A No. 4:14-2276-RMG-TER
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
OFFICER (MR.) LARRY DURANT
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________________ )
)
LAVADRE DASHUN BUTLER,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. #48). Defendant filed
a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. #59).
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of certain
documents that he asserts the Defendant did not provide in the response to the request for
production.1 Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s responses and Defendant’s responses to the motion
to compel are as follows, quoted verbatim:
1.
In Defendant’s response to the forementioned Request for Production
the complete answer to the third request due to the fact the Defendant
alleges that Plaintiff’s medical records from 6-13-12 until 8-5-14
were enclosed with the response, is fabricated seeing as this
documentation was not included in the correspondence received by
the Plaintiff from Thompson + Henry PA on 12-17-14. This tactic is
hindering the Plaintiff from further proving the fact the Plaintiff was
injured due to the actions of the Plaintiff.
Response:
The medical documents requested by the Plaintiff were enclosed in
the Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production dated
December 12, 2014, but the Defendant is resending them to the
Plaintiff as an attachment to this response.
1
compel.
Plaintiff did not attach a copy of the discovery requests and responses to his motion to
(Doc. #59).
Based on the response of Defendant, the motion to compel as to this request is denied as
moot.
2.
Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s fourth request, the complete
record of the Defendant as a prison employee with all sensitive
information redacted should be overuled seeing as the Defendant has
failed to demonstrate how this request is irrelevant, a security risk,
unwarranted or inadmissible. This documentation would likely lead
to evidence showing the Defendant has history of making similar
constitutional violations, the Defendant has failed to uphold his duties
on more than one occasion, and would strengthen Plaintiff’s
complaint and all facts therein. Furthermore, Defendant should have
no problem allowing the requested documents to be viewed in camera
and redacted at the discretion of your honor.
Response:
Defendant’s personnel file has no relevance to Defendant’s alleged
actions or inactions as to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, this file contains
information which puts Defendant and his family at risk for criminal
activity.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel as to this request is granted provided, however, Defendant may
redact any information that he feels represents a security risk. Additionally, the Defendant shall
generally explain the nature of the information that is redacted. Defendant shall comply with this
directive within fifteen (15) days from the date of this order.
3.
Defendants objection to Plaintiff’s fifth request, the complete roster
of all inmates housed in the Darlington unit on the Northside on 6-1312 is completely without merit and should be overuled seeing as this
roster presents multiple potential eye witnesses possesing testimony
that will clearly establish the facts of this case and play a vital role in
shedding light on the wrongdoing of the Defendant. This information
would very likely be admissible in court therefore cannot be
irrelevant and is not burdensome whatsoever seeing as the requested
roster will most likely consist of no more than two to three sheets of
paper that SCDC can easily provide the Defendant with from their
2
records.
Response:
It is extremely unlikely that inmates will recall this incident two and
half (2/12/2) years later. Also, included in this list are presumably
Plaintiff’s attackers who are unlikely to be truthful about the
altercation. In addition, it would be burdensome to research this
information as inmate movements are recorded individually, and not
by area.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with regard to this request. Defendant shall provide
this information to the Plaintiff within fifteen (15) days from the date of this order.
4.
Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s sixth request, the rules and
regulations and policies concerning the operation of a Dorm in the
S.C. Dept. Of Corrections, with all sensitive information redacted
pending an in camera view by the Honorable Judge Rogers, has no
merit seeing as the Defendant has failed to demonstrate how these
documents would be irrelevant, inadmissible, or overly broad. This
information would clearly establish the duties expected of the
Defendant while operating in the dorm on 6-13-12 and would either
prove his actions to be completely justified under color of state law
and SCDC guidelines or completely unjustified making this
information extremely relevant to the facts mentioned in the
Plaintiff’s complaint.
Response:
Revealing institutional operations information to inmates presents a
substantial security risk to correctional officers and the Defendant
strenuously objects to discovery of this information. In addition, this
information is irrelevant because even if internal policies were
violated, which is denied, such violations do not equate to
constitutional violations of Plaintiff’s rights.
A court can limit discovery when the burden of the discovery would outweigh the benefits.
Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii), Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff’s motion to compel his overly broad request for “rules
and regulations and policies concerning the operation of a Dorm” is denied.
3
5.
Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s eighth request, the rules and
regulations and policies governing us[e] of force by SC Dept. Of
Corrections employees with all sensitive information redacted at the
discretion of the Honorable Judge Rogers after viewing these
documents in camera, has no merit and should be overuled seeing as
this information would bring into focus whether or not the actions
performed by the Defendant during the attack on the Plaintiff were
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. This information
should be viewed in camera by your honor, redacted accordingly, and
given to the Plaintiff so that justice may prevail.
Response:
Revealing “Restricted” Use of Force policy to inmates presents a
substantial security risk. Also, this is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s case. He
does not allege excessive force was used on him but that Officer
Durant failed to protect him.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel restricted policy is denied. Plaintiff fails to make a showing of
need in this case for such policy. Plaintiff has not raised allegations of excessive force. Thus, he fails
to show any benefit that would outweigh the security interests of the SCDC. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel as to this request is denied.
6.
Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s ninth request, inspection of any
material and objects obtained/confiscated in relation to the 6-13-12
incident, has absolutely no merit and should be overuled seeing as
this request would yield evidence corroboration Plaintiff’s complaint
including the weapon that the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to be
attacked with and severely injured on 6-13-12 therefore this cannot
be viewed irrelevant and would be the type of evidence expected in
a case justice would benefit greatly.
Response:
Incident reports detail the contraband confiscated after the incident,
including from the Plaintiff. A visual inspection would provide no
additional information.
Plaintiff seeks inspection of the weapon that was allegedly used to injure the Plaintiff on June
13, 2012. In lieu of permitting inspection, Defendant may provide Plaintiff with a photograph of any
such weapon obtained/confiscated within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order.
4
7.
Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s twelfth request, minutes of staff
meetings held concerning the 6-13-12, has no merit and should be
overuled due to the fact his would provide additional information
surrounding the theory of defense as well as the facts stated in
complaint.
Response:
Upon information and belief, there are no minutes of staff meetings
concerning the June 13, 2012 inmate altercation.
Defendant’s response to this request is sufficient. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel
with regard to this request is denied.
8.
Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s thirteenth request, the
Defendant’s use of report, due to the fact this would present both
parties with an equal opportunity to weigh the Defendant’s actions in
light of the actions that should or should not have taken place while
the Plaintiff was being attacked, totally helpless to defend himself.
Response:
All reports regarding this incident were attached to Defendant’s
Summary Judgment motion and served on Plaintiff.
Defendant asserts that he has provided all documents which would be responsive to this
request and served on Plaintiff along with the motion for summary judgment, Therefore, the motion
to compel with regard to this request is denied.
9.
Defendant’s objections to all request(s) not individually mentioned
hold no merit as well and are completely frivolous in an attempt to
dilute the truth of the matter as well as th speed and efficiency of
which we arrive at this truth.
Response:
This Defendant denies this assertion.
5
Plaintiff’s request is vague, overly broad, and lacks any specificity. Thus, the motion to
compel with regard to this request is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
January 27, 2015
Florence, South Carolina
6
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?