Scott v. Ray et al

Filing 54

ORDER finding as moot 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; finding as moot 27 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 06/26/2018.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

BERNARD SCOTT,
Plaintiff,

vs.
PATRICIA RAY, ALLISON DAYS,
ANGELA SUMPTER, AND CPL.
SHANNON,
Defendants.

) C/A No. 4:17-3100-RBH-TER
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

____________________________________

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF
#31). On April 26, 2018, Defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion.
(ECF #32).
In this motion, Plaintiff moves to have an order “compelling the Defendants to
produce for inspection and copying the documents requested on 2-23-18 and 2-2818.” (ECF #31).
Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Compel stating that
the following documents have been provided to the Plaintiff: Bates StampedHandwritten Grievances 2000-2013, Kiosk Grievances 1000-1090, and Inmate
Handbook 4000-4016. Each Request to produce and Defendants response will be
discussed below.

1st Request to Produce
3:

Any and all documents that classification has on the
plaintiff.

Answer:

The Darlington County Detention Center safety and
security policies prohibit disclosure of the requested
information which may compromise the security of
employees, contractors, and residents of the DCDC
facility.

In the response in opposition, Defendants assert that access to Plaintiff’s
classification file at the DCDC is restricted by the detention center. Defendants assert
that certain portions of Plaintiff’s classification file may be reviewed at the facility
upon request through the detention center’s kiosk/grievance system.
Ruling:
The Motion to Compel with respect to this request is granted to the extent that
Defendants are to provide the “certain portions” of Plaintiff’s classification file that
is referenced in their response which they assert “may be reviewed at the facility” to
the Plaintiff within fifteen days of the date of this order.

4.

The incident reports from all officers written about
the plaintiff. Especially ones by Sgt. Sumpter.

Answer:

These records are protected from disclosures
pursuant to Darlington County Detention Center
Safety Policies as disclosures would cause an undue
risk of harm to the employees, contractors and
residents of [D]CDC facility.

2

Ruling:
The Motion to Compel with respect to this request is granted to the extent
Defendants are to provide the incident reports to the Plaintiff within fifteen days or
provide to the court for review by affidavit or other appropriate evidence detailing the
reasons why these reports are protected and would be an “undue risk of harm.”

5.

The rules and policies on housing sex offenders.

Answer:

These records are protected from disclosure pursuant
to South Carolina Department of Corrections Safety
policies as disclosure would cause an undue risk of
harm to the employees, contractors and residents of
SCDC facilities.

Ruling:
The Motion to Compel with respect to this request is granted to the extent
Defendants are to provide the rules and policies on housing sex offenders to the
Plaintiff within fifteen days or provide to the court for review by affidavit or other
appropriate evidence detailing the reasons why these reports are protected and would
be an “undue risk of harm.”

6.

A copy of the document stating why defendant
Sumpter was terminated.

Answer:

These records are protected from disclosure pursuant
to South Carolina Department of Corrections Safety
policies as disclosure would cause an undue risk of
harm to the employees, contractors and residents of
SCDC facilities.

3

In the response in opposition to the Motion to Compel, Defendants state that
Plaintiff is seeking access to personnel records for certain employees, including Sgt.
Sumpter, of the detention center. Defendants asserts that personnel information of
staff is classified as restricted by the detention center and respectfully submit that
providing employee personnel information to detainees presents a significant security
risk to the employees, their families, other detention center staff, inmates, and the
institution itself. Additionally, Defendants assert that the information sought is not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case.
Ruling:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as to this request to produce is granted to the
extent that, within fifteen days from the date of this order, Defendants are to provide
to the Plaintiff the reason for Sgt. Sumpter’s separation from employment.

7.

Policies on officers conduct toward prisoners.

Answer:

Inmate handbook, under Staff and Inmate Relations.

Ruling:
Defendants have asserted that they provided the Plaintiff with a copy of the
Inmate Handbook, Bates Stamped 4000-4016. Therefore, Defendants have sufficiently
responded to this overly broad request to produce and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
is denied.

8.

All kiosk messages sent to any staff member by the
4

plaintiff concerning this accusation
defendants of being gay.
Answer:

by

the

Plaintiff’s submitted grievances will be provided to
him upon receipt.

Ruling:
In the response in opposition, Defendants assert they have provided Plaintiff
with a copy of his Kiosk Grievances Bates stamped 1000-1090. Therefore, Defendants
have sufficiently responded to this request to produce and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel is denied.

2nd Request for Production of Documents
3.

Any and all documents that classification has on this
issue.

Answer:

The Darlington County Detention Center safety and
security policies prohibit disclosure of the requested
information which may compromise the security of
employees, contractors, and residents of the DCDC
facility.

Ruling:
Defendants’ response to No. 3 above (1st Request to Produce) sufficiently
responds to this overly broad request.
4.

The incident reports from all officers written about
the plaintiff. Especially ones by Sgt. Sumpter.

Answer:

These records are protected from disclosure pursuant
to Darlington County Detention Center Safety
policies as disclosure would cause an undue risk of
harm to the employees, contractors and residents of
DCDC facility.
5

Ruling:
This is the same request as set forth in request No. 4 above.

5.

The rules and policies on housing sex offenders.

Answer:

The Darlington County Detention Center safety and
security policies prohibit disclosure of the requested
information which may compromise the security of
employees, contractors, and residents of the DCDC
facility.

Ruling:
This is the same request as set forth in request No. 5 above.
6.

A copy of disciplinary report on all officers that’s
involved in this case.

Answer:

The Darlington County Detention Center safety and
security policies prohibit disclosure of the requested
information which may compromise the security of
employees, contractors, and residents of the DCDC
facility.

Ruling:
In their response to the request for production, Defendants generally responded
and objected to the Requests to the extent they are not limited temporally and are
overly broad and unduly burdensome. This Request is overly broad as it contains no
date restriction, subject matter restriction, and fails to define the parameters.
Therefore, the Motion to Compel with respect to this Request is denied.

7.

Any and all documents on why Sgt. Sumter was
terminated from Darlington County Detention Center
6

a couple of years ago.
Answer:

The Darlington County Detention center safely and
security policies prohibit disclosure of the requested
information which may compromise the security of
employees, contractors, and residents of the DCDC
facility.”

Ruling:
This is the same request as set forth in request No. 6 above.
8.

Officers conduct towards inmates
“documents”.

Answer:

Provided to Plaintiff on February 22, 2018.

Ruling:
It appears Defendants have responded to this request. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel with regard to this request is denied.
On March 15, 2018, and May 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the
discovery deadline. (Docs. #27 and #41). In these motions, Plaintiff requested
additional time for the discovery deadline due to Defendants not responding to his
discovery requests. As the court has now ruled on his motion to compel, these motions
for extensions of time to complete discovery are deemed moot.

Conclusion
7

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted in part
and denied in part and Plaintiff’s motions for extensions of time are deemed moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
June 26, 2018
Florence, South Carolina

8