Scott v. Jones et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 4/9/2014.(mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Larry W. Scott, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Major Jones, Lt Clawson, Lt Murant or Marant,
)
Ofc Green, Ofc Anderson, Ofc Hopkins,
)
Ofc Jeffcoat, and John and Jane Does
)
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )

C/A No. 5:13-cv-02870-DCN-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 41. Defendants filed an
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on March 21, 2014. ECF No. 57. Pursuant to the provisions of
Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this
magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that if a party fails to respond to discovery,
the party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling production. The decision to grant
or to deny a motion to compel discovery rests within the broad discretion of the trial court. See
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Va., Inc., 43 F.3d 922, 929 (4th Cir. 1995)
(holding the “Court affords a district court substantial discretion in managing discovery and
reviews the denial or granting of a motion to compel discovery for abuse of discretion.”)
(internal citation omitted); LaRouche v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc., 780 F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir.

1986) (holding “[a] motion to compel discovery is addressed to the sound discretion of the
district court.”).
In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to
Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 2(1a), 2(1b), 2(1c), 2(1d). ECF No. 41 at 4-11. Plaintiff
also seeks the production of video footage captured by cameras at Lexington County Detention
Center (“LCDC”) and the disciplinary records of another LCDC inmate. Id. Defendants oppose
Plaintiff’s motion arguing that they have “complied with the Plaintiff’s discovery requests in this
matter.” ECF No. 57 at 6. The court will address each disputed Request in turn:
a. RFP No. 2(1a): Any medical reports, psychological reports, records or
observations, written charts, and medical tests, by medical, mental health,
or other medical profession, hired or employed by the Lexington County
Detention Center, related to or in respect to Larry W. Scott #315277,
from dates February 10, 2012 – April 22, 2013.
 Defendants objected arguing that the Request was overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
further stated that they are not in possession of the requested
documents and the documents should be obtained directly from
the third-party medical provider.
b. RFP No. 2(1b): Any or all incident reports filed by authorities of
Lexington County Detention Center:
 Defendants objected arguing that the Request was overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to those
objections, Defendants produced a copy of Plaintiff’s inmate
file.
c. RFP No. 2(1c): All employee records, to include rank, hire date,
disciplinary records, of all employees of Lexington County Detention Center,
staff, medical personal, or private contract, that are or have been part time,
full time, or voluntary basis, at the above described county of Lexington
Detention Center from the date of February 10, 2012 until April 22, 2013.
 Defendants objected that the Request was overly broad, unduly
burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Defendants further objected due to
privacy and security concerns. Defendants further stated that
they are not in possession of the requested documents.

d. RFP No. 2(1d): All and any records of inmates that where (sic) housed or
admitted to the Lexington County Detention Center between the dates of
February 10, 2012 - and April 22, 2013, there (sic) housing location, within
the Lexington County Detention Center, dates of the location of inmates in
the Lexington, what units and cell assignments, of individual inmates, and
any pertinent information as to the assignment of each inmate housed in the
Lexington County Detention Center, from February 10, 2012 and April 22,
2013.
 Defendants objected that the Request was overly broad, unduly
burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Defendants also objected based on
privacy concerns. Defendants further stated that they are not in
possession of the requested documents.
e. Request of video footage for 1/5/13 to 1/21/13.
 Defendants objected arguing that the Request was overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
stated that they were in the process of determining if any such
video exists for the requested time periods, and if such
recordings exist, Defendants will make arrangements for
Plaintiff to view.
o In their Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel,
Defendants indicate that video footage requested by
Plaintiff no longer exists.

f. Disciplinary reports for events that occurred on 1/5/13, and other reports
for Antwoin Price and Larry W. Scott.
 Defendants object to the production of the files for any inmate
that is not a party to this litigation. Defendants state they have
produced a complete copy of Plaintiff’s inmate records.
The court has reviewed Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s Requests and finds that
Defendants’ objections are well founded.

The court further finds that Defendants have

sufficiently responded to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production and have provided Plaintiff with
documents and material relevant to the prosecution of his case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel, ECF No. 41, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 9, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge