Cobb v. Knode et al

Filing 119

ORDER denying 89 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 91 Motion to Expedite; granting in part 93 Motion to Extend; granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion to Compel; denying 100 Motion to Strike; granting in part 102 Motion to Extend; denying 103 Motion to Strike; denying 105 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 108 Motion to Extend; granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion to Compel; denying 111 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by U.S.Magistrate Judge John E. Simko on 9/8/10. (DJP)

Download PDF
Cobb v. Knode et al Doc. 119 EP 09 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION *************************************************** MATTHEW COBB, Plaintiff, vs. ~~ * * * * * * * 1. CIV. 0 9 - 4 1 1 0 ORDER M o t i o n to S t r i k e A f f i d a v i t o f P a m L i n n e w e b e r , Doc. 89; M o t i o n f o r E x p e d i t e d R u l i n g , Doc. 91 ; M o t i o n s for A d d i t i o n a l T i m e , Docs. 9 3 , 1 0 2 , & 108; M o t i o n to C o m p e l , Doc. 94; M o t i o n to S t r i k e A f f i d a v i t o f R e b e c c a W e a v e r , D o c . 100; M o t i o n to S t r i k e A f f i d a v i t o f S t a n l e y K n o d e , D o c . 103; M o t i o n to S t r i k e Ex. A from A f f i d a v i t o f D o u g Loen, Doc. 105; S e c o n d M o t i o n to C o m p e l , D o c . 109; S e c o n d M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l , D o c . 111. S T A N L E Y K N O D E , Correctional Officer, S D S P ; * R. A R N E T T , C O , S D S P V i s i t R o o m ; * 2. MARCI HARVISON, CO, SDSP Visit Room; * R O B E R T K U E M P E R , A s s o c i a t e W a r d e n , S D S P ; * 3. T O M L I N N E W E B E R , Major, Officer-in-Charge * o f Special Security; D O U G L O E N , attorney, * 4. S D S P Legal C o u n s e l ; A L M A D S E N , U n i t M a n a g e r ; * 5 . S D S P ; K. W R I G H T , CO, S D S P V i s i t R o o m ; * DOUGLAS WEBER, Warden, SDSP; * 6. TIM REISCH, DOC Secretary o f Corrections; * M A R K BIONE, paralegal, S D S P ; * 7. D E L M A R W A L T E R , attorney, S D S P ; * * 8. Defendants. * * 9. * * BACKGROUND *************************************************** P l a i n t i f f , an i n m a t e a t t h e S o u t h D a k o t a S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y ( S D S P ) f i l e d a p r o s e c i v i l r i g h t s l a w s u i t p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U . S . c . 1983. In h i s C o m p l a i n t , h e a l l e g e s D e f e n d a n t s r e t a l i a t e d a g a i n s t h i m a r e s u l t o f h i s c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w h i c h h e a l l e g e s o c c u r r e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his v i s i t i n g p r i v i l e g e s w i t h his m o t h e r a n d half-sister. P l a i n t i f f alleges his visiting privileges with his m o t h e r a n d h a l f - s i s t e r h a v e b e e n s u s p e n d e d a n d that D e f e n d a n t s h a v e f a b r i c a t e d c h a r g e s o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d u c t b y h i m a n d h i s m o t h e r , all b e c a u s e D e f e n d a n t ' s h a l f - s i s t e r is p a r t b l a c k . P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s : ( I ) h e has b e e n d e n i e d a c c e s s to t h e C o u r t s i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e F i r s t a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t b e c a u s e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s h a v e r e f u s e d t o a s s i s t h i m w i t h h i s l e g a l c l a i m s ; (2) b e c a u s e h i s h a l f - s i s t e r is p a r t b l a c k , t h e D e f e n d a n t s h a v e d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t h i m , in v i o l a t i o n o f Dockets.Justia.com the E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e a n d the E i g h t h , N i n t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; (3) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e t e r m i n a t e d h i s v i s i t s w i t h h i s m o t h e r a n d h a l f - s i s t e r f o r r e a s o n s w h i c h are false, u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d a n d r a c i a l l y m o t i v a t e d , in v i o l a t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f s r i g h t to p r i v a c y , free a s s o c i a t i o n a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e F i r s t , E i g h t h , N i n t h , a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; ( 4 ) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a l l o w e d false, l i b e l o u s , d i s c r i m i n a t o r y , m a l i c i o u s , a n d r e t a l i a t o r y r e p o r t s to b e p l a c e d i n h i s p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d w h e r e t h e y w i l l b e u s e d i n a n u n f a i r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y , in v i o l a t i o n o f P l a i n t i f f s d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e E i g h t h , N i n t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; (5) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a l l o w e d g r i e v a n c e s to b e filed c o n t r a r y to D O C policy, c r u e l l y d e n y i n g P l a i n t i f f d u e p r o c e s s a s g u a r a n t e e d b y the E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; (6) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a l l o w e d arbitrary, r e t a l i a t o r y d i s c i p l i n a r y r e p o r t s to b e i s s u e d w h i c h will r e m a i n o n P l a i n t i f f s p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d a n d will b e u s e d to d e t e r m i n e h i s p a r o l e eligibility, c r u e l l y d e n y i n g h i m d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s ; ( 7 ) D e f e n d a n t s h a v e i g n o r e d h i s r e q u e s t s to p r e s e r v e f o r u s e as e v i d e n c e i n this litigation v i d e o t a p e s o f his v i s i t s w h e r e i n a p p r o p r i a t e a t t i r e o r c o n d u c t h a v e b e e n a l l e g e d , c r u e l l y d e n y i n g h i m d u e p r o c e s s a n d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n as g u a r a n t e e d b y t h e E i g h t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h Amendments. In s u p p o r t o f h i s C o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f p r o v i d e d the C o u r t w i t h h i s o w n A f f i d a v i t ( D o c . 3), as w e l l as A f f i d a v i t s from his m o t h e r ( S u s a n C o b b ) ( D o c . 4 ) a n d h i s g i r l f r i e n d ( N i c o l e C a m p b e l l ) (Doc. 5). In h i s C o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f s e e k s i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f in t h e form o f a d e c l a r a t i o n b y the C o u r t that D e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s are u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . H e also s e e k s an Order to p r o v i d e P l a i n t i f f with copies o j r e p o r t s a l l e g i n g i m p r o p r i e t y b y h i m a n d d i s c i p l i n a r y reports a n d e x p u n g i n g s a i d r e p o r t s from h i s r e c o r d , p r e s e r v i n g r e l e v a n t v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s and r e i n s t a t i n g his v i s i t i n g p r i v i l e g e s w i t h h i s m o t h e r . P l a i n t i f f also s e e k s m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 e a c h from D e f e n d a n t s K n o d e and H a r v i s o n a n d f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r c o s t s a n d fees. 2 DISCUSSION 1. M o t i o n to S t r i k e L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t (Doc. 89) O n M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a M o t i o n for S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t ( D o c . 8 2 ) a l o n g w i t h s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s . O n e o f t h e s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t s is t h e A f f i d a v i t o f P a m L i n n e w e b e r ( D o c . 8 8 ) , w i t h a t t a c h m e n t s . T h e a t t a c h m e n t s to the A f f i d a v i t c o n s i s t o f p o r t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s institutional file i n c l u d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a l reports, d i s c i p l i n a r y reports, and g r i e v a n c e s . I P l a i n t i f f m o v e s to s t r i k e L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t , a s s e r t i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s in h i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l f i l e s h o u l d b e i n a d m i s s i b l e p u r s u a n t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) b e c a u s e t h e y are i n s u f f i c i e n t , i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t and scandalous. P l a i n t i f f also cites v a r i o u s r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e , the m o s t p e r t i n e n t b e i n g Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), the b u s i n e s s record e x c e p t i o n to the h e a r s a y rule. inapplicable b e c a u s e the records are not trustworthy. P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s the e x c e p t i o n is T h e issue raised b y P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to S t r i k e is w h e t h e r t h e d o c u m e n t s a t t a c h e d to Linneweber's A f f i d a v i t s h o u l d b e a d m i s s i b l e at the s u m m a r y j u d g e m e n t s t a g e p u r s u a n t to t h e b u s i n e s s record e x c e p t i o n (Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)) to the h e a r s a y rule. T h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e is reviewed for a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , e v e n at the s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t s t a g e o f l i t i g a t i o n . Morgan v. United Parcel Service o fAmerica, 3 8 0 F . 3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 7 ( 8 t h Cir. 2 0 0 4 ) . A l t h o u g h P l a i n t i f f w i s h e s to s t r i k e from t h e r e c o r d t h e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h m e m o r i a l i z e t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s t a k e n a g a i n s t h i m b y p r i s o n p e r s o n n e l , P l a i n t i f f a t t a c h e d his r e s p o n s e s to t h o s e s a m e d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s to his o w n A f f i d a v i t ( D o c . 3) w h i c h h e f i l e d in s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m s h e m a k e s i n h i s C o m p l a i n t . Additionally, as p a r t o f the r e l i e f h e s e e k s in his C o m p l a i n t , h e r e q u e s t s the C o u r t to o r d e r the D e f e n d a n t s to p r o d u c e the v e r y d o c u m e n t s h e n o w r e q u e s t s s t r i c k e n from t h e record. P l a i n t i f f c a n n o t h a v e i t b o t h w a y s . F o r t h e r e a s o n s m o r e f u l l y e x p l a i n e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h s , t h e d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n e d in P l a i n t i f f s i n s t i t u t i o n a l file and attached to L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t fall w i t h i n the b u s i n e s s record e x c e p t i o n to the h e a r s a y rule u n d e r Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). L i n n e w e b e r ' s A f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n s E x h i b i t A, w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e s p o r t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s IThese are the v e r y d o c u m e n t s P l a i n t i f f a s k s the C o u r t to O r d e r D e f e n d a n t s to p r o d u c e as p a r t o f t h e r e l i e f h e s e e k s in h i s C o m p l a i n t . 3 institutional file. Included in Exhibit A are copies o f "informational reports" b y several different prison personnel ( D e f e n d a n t s claim twenty-one, P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s n i n e t e e n ) w h o h a v e w r i t t e n reports regarding the behavior o f both P l a i n t i f f and his mother during visitation sessions at the SDSP. P l a i n t i f f disputes the accuracy o f the information contained in the informational reports, as demonstrated by his grievance documents and other documents, attached as exhibits to his o w n declaration (Doc. 3) and the declaration o f his m o t h e r (Doc. 4) and girlfriend (Doc. 5) submitted in support o f his Complaint. P l a i n t i f f asserts the d o c u m e n t s h e has attached to his supporting declarations proves that at least s o m e o f the claims m a d e in the informational reports have been p r o v e n m e r i t l e s s . ( D o c s . 3-5). A Magistrate j u d g e from the Western District o f N e w York was recently faced with a similar dilernma: 2 Motions for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t must be supported by a d m i s s i b l e evidence. Hearsay evidence is not a d m i s s i b l e unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. M e d i c a l and p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e r e c o r d s , a l t h o u g h h e a r s a y , m a y b e a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r the business records exception to the hearsay rule. T h a t e x c e p t i o n renders admissible records o f 'acts events, conditions, opinions, o r diagnoses, m a d e at o r near the time b y or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge' b u t o n l y i f such records are 'kept in the course o f a regularly conducted business activity, and i f i t was the regular practice o f that business activity to m a k e a m e m o r a n d u m , report, record, o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n . ' F a c t s s u p p o r t i n g a d m i s s i b i l i t y m u s t b e s u p p l i e d ' b y the t e s t i m o n y o f the c u s t o d i a n o r o t h e r q u a l i f i e d w i t n e s s b y c e r t i f i c a t i o n ' t h a t c o m p l i e s w i t h F e d e r a l R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 902. Atkinson v. Fischer, 2009 W L 3165544 (W.O.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009) (citations omitted, punctuation altered). T h e Magistrate Judge in Atkinson considered the institutional records pursuant to 803(6) even though they were not properly authenticated, b e c a u s e both parties relied upon them in arguing their summary j u d g m e n t positions. In this case, the Defendants resubmitted the institutional records with proper authentication along with the Affidavit o f Rebecca W e a v e r (Doc. 97). Additionally, like Atkinson, both parties rely on institutional records to support their claims, albeit different parts o f 2In Atkinson, the Defendant prison's motion for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t was likewise supported by "prison records, including grievance records and medical records." Atkinson v. F i s c h e r , 2 0 0 9 W L 3 1 6 5 5 4 4 ( W . O . N . Y . S e p t . 25, 2 0 0 9 ) . 4 the institutional record. N e i t h e r p a r t y c i t e s E i g h t h C i r c u i t l a w d i r e c t l y o n p o i n t and t h e C o u r t has f o u n d none. T h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t , h o w e v e r , h a s r e p e a t e d l y t a k e n t h e v i e w t h a t p r i s o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e c o r d s are b u s i n e s s records pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). "A prison is clearly a b u s i n e s s within the meaning o f the t e n n in the statute and the rule, and inasmuch as the m e m o r a n d u m was prepared b y a m e m b e r o f the s t a f f at [the prison] and was lodged in the official prison files, we conclude that it was m a d e in the regular course o f prison activity. T h e fact that the m e m o r a n d u m was retained as part o f p l a i n t i f f s prison file indicates that it is the type o f document routinely relied upon by prison officials." Stone v. Morris, 546 F.2d 730, 738 (7th Cir. 1977). Addressing the argument that such d o c u m e n t s lacked trustworthiness b e c a u s e the source was not known, the C o u r t noted such arguments should go to the weight accorded to the document, not its admissibility. Id. at 738-39. Accord, Moffet v. McCauley, 7 2 4 F . 2 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 4 ( 7 t h Cir. 1 9 8 4 ) . " T h e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l w h o p r e p a r e d t h e r e p o r t h a d a b u s i n e s s d u t y and a p u b l i c obligation to be accurate . . . It is clear that the report does have circumstantial guarantees o f trustworthiness sufficient to meet the trustworthiness requirement o f R u l e 803(24). U n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w e t h i n k t h a t the l a c k o f m o r e s p e c i f i c i n f o n n a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the preparation o f the report more properly goes to its w e i g h t than its admissibility." !d. P l a i n t i f f s b r i e f offers several reasons for the C o u r t to c o n c l u d e the disciplinary reports do n o t m e e t the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s r e q u i r e m e n t o f R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) . A m o n g t h e m a r e h i s a s s e r t i o n s t h a t p r i s o n personnel were acting in their o w n self-interest w h e n they w r o t e the reports, and that many o f the reports have later been proven wrong. As explained in Wheeler v. Sims, 951 F.2d 796 (7th Cir. 1992), however, part o f t h e "business" o f prison personnel is to m o n i t o r and d o c u m e n t the behavior o f the prisoners. T h i s Court has reviewed hundreds i f not thousands o f disciplinary reports and is aware they f o n n the basis o f all sorts o f decisions m a d e by prison personnel, including rehabilitation, parole, and maintaining the general o r d e r and discipline o f the institution. P l a i n t i f f s disagreement with the accuracy o f the reports is better addressed in his Statement o f Disputed/Undisputed Facts and other summary j u d g m e n t papers than in a motion to strike Linneweber's Affidavit. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike (Doc. 89) is D E N I E D . 5 2. M o t i o n for E x p e d i t e d R u l i n g (Doc. 91) P l a i n t i f f filed a M o t i o n for Expedited R u l i n g (Doc. 91) r e q u e s t i n g a r u l i n g o n his M o t i o n to Strike Linneweber's Affidavit before the twenty day d e a d l i n e p a s s e d for him to respond to the D e f e n d a n t s ' S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t M o t i o n w h i c h w a s filed o n M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 . T h e P l a i n t i f f s deadline to respond to the S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t d e a d l i n e h a s l o n g p a s s e d and he has filed three Motions for Additional T i m e (Docs. 93, 102 & 108). P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n for E x p e d i t e d R u l i n g (Doc. 91) is therefore DENIED as moot. 3. Motions for A d d i t i o n a l T i m e (Docs. 93, 102 & 108) P l a i n t i f f h a s m a d e t h r e e m o t i o n s for a d d i t i o n a l time. T h e f i r s t m o t i o n ( D o c . 9 3 ) r e q u e s t s additional time to respond to Defendants' M o t i o n for S u m m a r y Judgment. P l a i n t i f f explains he needs to k n o w w h e t h e r Linneweber's affidavit will b e stricken, and w h e t h e r he will b e allowed to o b t a i n further d i s c o v e r y i n c l u d i n g d i s c i p l i n a r y r e p o r t s w r i t t e n b e f o r e O c t o b e r 2 0 0 4 . P l a i n t i f f will be allowed until N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 I 0 to respond to D e f e n d a n t s ' S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t Motion, b u t the time for discovery has closed. P l a i n t i f f s Motion for Additional T i m e (Doc. 93) is G R A N T E D in part. P l a i n t i f f s Second Motion for additional t i m e (Doc. 102) likewise s e e k s additional time to complete discovery and to respond to Defendants' M o t i o n for S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t . P l a i n t i f f will be allowed until N o v e m b e r 15, 2 0 I 0 to respond to D e f e n d a n t s ' S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t Motion, b u t discovery has closed. P l a i n t i f f s Second M o t i o n for Additional T i m e (Doc. 102) is G R A N T E D in part. P l a i n t i f f s T h i r d M o t i o n for Additional T i m e (Doc. 108) s e e k s additional time in which to p r e p a r e a S e c o n d M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l . T h e M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l has now been filed. P l a i n t i f f s Third M o t i o n for Additional T i m e (Doc. 108) is D E N I E D as moot. 4. M o t i o n to Compel (Doc. 94) P l a i n t i f f filed a M o t i o n to C o m p e l (Doc. 94). He seeks three categories o f information. F o r 6 the following reasons, P l a i n t i f f s Motion is be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. First, P l a i n t i f f asserts Defendants' responses to his R e q u e s t for Production o f Documents is incomplete, because in their answers to his Interrogatories Defendants indicate several dates in which inappropriate contact between P l a i n t i f f and his sister Izabela was "documented" but no "documents" were produced for c o r r e s p o n d i n g dates Production o f Documents. in Defendants' responses to P l a i n t i f f s Request for S p e c i f i c a l l y , P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s no d o c u m e n t a t i o n w a s p r o d u c e d f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t e s w h i c h D e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t a c t w a s d o c u m e n t e d : 1 2 - 7 - 0 6 and 9 - 2 6 - 0 7 . P l a i n t i f f m a k e s t h i s s a m e a s s e r t i o n for i n s t a n c e s o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t a c t w i t h h i s g i r l f r i e n d , N i c o l e C a m p b e l l for t h e f o l l o w i n g dates: 5 - 3 0 - 0 8 , 1 0 - 1 1 - 0 8 , 1 1 - 2 9 - 0 8 , 1 2 - 3 0 - 0 8 - , 1 - 2 - 0 9 , 2 - 6 - 0 9 , 4 - 1 7 - 0 9 , a n d 1 0 - 1 9 - 0 9 . P l a i n t i f f also asserts he has not received all o f the "reports" pertaining to the attire and/or b e h a v i o r o f his m o t h e r d u r i n g h e r v i s i t s . 3 H e b a s e s t h i s c l a i m o n t h e l a n g u a g e in t h e r e p o r t s h e h a s received which refer to previous reports and previous incidents. Defendants filed a B r i e f and a copy o f their A n s w e r s to P l a i n t i f f s Second Set o f Interrogatories and Responses to Second Request for Production o f Documents. (Docs. 98-1 & 98-2). Defense counsel has explained that no further informational reports exist. Defendants also filed a Supplemental Response (Doc. 118), attaching an updated "visit summary" c o m p u t e r printout which consists o f a log o f P l a i n t i f f s visits, along with an accurate c o m m e n t section. I t is apparent the c o m m e n t s e c t i o n a d d r e s s e s P l a i n t i f f s c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g t h e d a t e s for w h i c h t h e r e w a s p r e v i o u s l y provided no documentation for allegedly inappropriate contact between P l a i n t i f f and his sister and/or his girlfriend. T h e updated visit summary, combined with Defendants' representation that no further 3In this regard he specifically mentions a "documented" incident dated August 18, 2006. T h e Defendants have provided an informational report dated A u g u s t 16, 2008. I t appears there was a typographical error in Defendants' Answers to Interrogatories which listed the date as the 16th instead o f the 18th. 7 infonnational reports exist, satisfies D e f e n d a n t s ' obligation to p r o d u c e d o c u m e n t s in response to P l a i n t i f f s Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s #1. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to C o m p e l is DENIED as to this category o f documents. Next, P l a i n t i f f m o v e s to compel the production o f any e x i s t i n g video tapes o f his visits which d e p i c t a l l e g e d l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d u c t b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f and h i s y o u n g e r s i s t e r o r h i s g i r l f r i e n d , o r which depict P l a i n t i f f s mother's allegedly inappropriate attire o r conduct. D e f e n d a n t s objected to the production o f the tapes, c l a i m i n g that to do so would j e o p a r d i z e p r i s o n security. B o t h parties agree, however, that an in camera review o f the video tapes is appropriate. It is therefore O R D E R E D that P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Compel is GRANTED in part as to the video tapes as follows: any video tapes w h i c h depict conduct described in Defendants' A n s w e r s to P l a i n t i f f s Interrogatory N o . 1 shall be produced for the Court's in camera review not later than 10 days after the date o f this Order. Finally, P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel the "duty roster" for the visit room on the dates for w h i c h he received i n f o n n a t i o n a l write-ups d u r i n g his visits. H e asserts he needs to k n o w w h o ( o t h e r than the officers w h o wrote him up) were w o r k i n g in the visit room that day in o r d e r to p r o v e the officers who wrote him up are not telling the truth. T h e Defendants o b j e c t e d to the request, asserting SDSP p o s t o r d e r s c a n n o t be p r o d u c e d for r e a s o n s o f s a f e t y , o r d e r a n d s e c u r i t y o f t h e p r i s o n . P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Compel the duty rosters is DENIED. P l a i n t i f f m a y rely o n his o w n recollection to submit the testimony o f w h o m e v e r h e wishes to dispute the Defendants' c l a i m s that the conduct o r attire o f P l a i n t i f f o r his v i s i t o r s w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . To Summarize, P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to C o m p e l (Doc. 94) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: P l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n to compel further d o c u m e n t s in r e s p o n s e to P l a i n t i f f s Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s N o . 1 is DENIED. P l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n to compel production o f the video tapes w h i c h depict conduct described in D e f e n d a n t s ' A n s w e r s to P l a i n t i f f s Interrogatory No. 1 shall be produced for the Court's in camera review not later than 10 days after the date o f this Order. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to C o m p e l the duty rosters is DENIED. 8 5. Motion to Strike Affidavit o f Rebecca Weaver (Doc. 100) D e f e n d a n t s o f f e r e d the A f f i d a v i t o f R e b e c c a W e a v e r a t t a c h i n g p o r t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s institutional file after P l a i n t i f f m o v e d to strike the Affidavit o f P a m Linneweber. Weaver's Affidavit p r o p e r l y a u t h e n t i c a t e s P l a i n t i f f s p r i s o n r e c o r d s and a t t a c h e s the c u r r e n t v e r s i o n o f D O C P o l i c y 1.3.E.2 (Administrative R e m e d y F o r Inmates) , a l o n g w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n o f all the substantive c h a n g e s that h a v e b e e n m a d e to the policy since April, 2003 (a m a t t e r about w h i c h P l a i n t i f f complained regarding the version o f the policy attached to Linneweber's Affidavit). P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike the Affidavit o f R e b e c c a W e a v e r (Doc. 100) is DENIED for the s a m e reasons his M o t i o n to Strike the L i n n e w e b e r Affidavit was denied. 6. Motion To Strike Affidavit o f Stanley Knode (Doc. 103) T h e D e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d K n o d e ' s A f f i d a v i t in s u p p o r t o f t h e i r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . Knode's Affidavit explains his e m p l o y m e n t duties at the SDSP, and attaches the Inmate Visiting P o l i c y 1 . 5 . 0 . 1 and t h e S D S P O p e r a t i o n a l M e m o r a n d u m 2 . 5 . 0 . 1 . P l a i n t i f f seeks to strike Knode's A f f i d a v i t for three reasons: (1) he alleges the attached polices are the current versions b u t the conduct w h i c h is the s u b j e c t o f this lawsuit occurred b e t w e e n M a r c h 2 0 0 2 and J a n u a r y 2 0 0 8 r e n d e r i n g t h e 2 0 0 9 v e r s i o n s o f t h e p o l i c i e s i m m a t e r i a l , i m p e r t i n e n t and irrelevant;4 (2) K n o d e is not an expert and not qualified to testify a b o u t w h e t h e r P l a i n t i f f s contact w i t h Izabela was a p p r o p r i a t e ; and (3) the r e m a i n i n g p a r a g r a p h s in Knode's affidavit (explaining his j o b duties and e x p l a i n i n g the e x i s t e n c e o f video s u r v e i l l a n c e in the visit room) are redundant to averments already m a d e e l s e w h e r e in the record b y P l a i n t i f f and should therefore b e stricken. Defendants filed a B r i e f o p p o s i n g P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike (Doc. 110). A t t a c h e d to the B r i e f are copies o f all revisions to the Inmate V i s i t i n g P o l i c y and the S D S P Operational 4Plaintiff does not e x p l a i n h o w t h e c u r r e n t p o l i c i e s m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r from t h e p o l i c i e s w h i c h were in effect during the relevant time frame. T h e C o u r t has reviewed the r e vision logs and has discerned no revisions w h i c h significantly affect the c l a i m s in this lawsuit. 9 Memorandum which have been m a d e since April, 2003. T h e P l a i n t i f f s failure to explain h o w the revisions affect the policies' application to his case, c o m b i n e d with the Defendants' s u b s e q u e n t s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e record d e f e a t s P l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e p o l i c i e s are " i m m a t e r i a l , impertinent and irrelevant." P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike b a s e d on this g r o u n d is therefore DENIED. Defendants assert they are not offering K n o d e as an expert, b u t as a fact witness. Defendants e x p l a i n K n o d e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e o b s e r v e d " f r e q u e n t " and " i n a p p r o p r i a t e " p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f and his sister Izabela is an a d m i s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t o f fact and i f it is an o p i n i o n at all, it is lay opinion under Fed. R. Evid. 701. Knode's j o b r e q u i r e s him to enforce the visit room policy. T h e policy and m e m o r a n d u m attached to Knode's Affidavit state the following r e g a r d i n g physical c onta c t b e t w e e n inmates and their visitors d u r i n g a "Class I" visit: Policy l . S . D . l Class I Visit: A visit conducted in a visiting room o r designated v i s i t i n g a r e a o f an adult D O C facility d u r i n g w h i c h l i m i t e d p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t i s a l l o w e d b e t w e e n the i r u n a t e and the visitor. Conjugal visits are not allowed at SO D O C facilities. T e r m i n a t i o n o f a Visit A. A visit can b e terminated o r denied u n d e r the f o l l o w i n g circumstances: 7. ** A v i s i t o r o r i r u n a t e i n d u l g e s in e x c e s s i v e p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t . Operation M e m o r a n d u m 2 . S . D . l Visit L i m i t a t i o n s A. Visitation in a correctional institution is a privilege that m a y b e limited o r terminated. Actions in the visit r o o m that affect the s a f e t y o r security o f the staff, inmates and o t h e r v i s i t o r s o r the m a i n t e n a n c e o f o r d e r w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n will n o t b e t o l e r a t e d and may result in a visit b e i n g curtailed and future visit privileges b e i n g suspended o r terminated. *** 10 E. S D S P will n o t allow an i n m a t e and his s p o u s e o r f e m a l e friend to kiss o n the lips d u r i n g a visit. 1. A n i n m a t e m a y e m b r a c e and b r i e f l y kiss h i s s p o u s e o r f e m a l e friend o n the cheek. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t e d , i n m a t e s a r e a l l o w e d to k i s s o t h e r i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y m e m b e r s o n t h e lips. R e g a r d l e s s o f the s i t u a t i o n that a p p l i e s , t h e kiss a n d / o r e m b r a c e w i t h any visitor(s) will b e b r i e f and c a n o n l y take p l a c e at the b e g i n n i n g and at the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e visit. T h e o n l y o t h e r p e r m i s s i b l e physical c o n t a c t is b e t w e e n an i n m a t e and k n o w n family m e m b e r s d u r i n g a visit will b e h a n d h o l d i n g in p l a i n sight a b o v e the table. 2. 3. 4. F. Failure to abide b y these rules m a y result in d i s c i p l i n a r y action against the i n m a t e and r e s t r i c t i o n s o r t e r m i n a t i o n o n the i n m a t e ' s v i s i t i n g p r i v i l e g e s . Fed. R. Evid. 701 states: I f the w i t n e s s is n o t testifying as an expert, the w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y in the form o f o p i n i o n s o r inferences is l i m i t e d to t h o s e o p i n i o n s o r i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h are (a) r a t i o n a l l y b a s e d o n the p e r c e p t i o n o f the w i t n e s s ; (b) helpful to a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w i t n e s s ' t e s t i m o n y o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a fact i n i s s u e ; a n d (c) n o t b a s e d o n s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e w i t h i n the s c o p e o f R u l e 702. Fed. R. Evid. 702 states: I f scientific, technical, o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e will assist the trier o f fact to u n d e r s t a n d the e v i d e n c e o r to d e t e r m i n e a fact in issue, a w i t n e s s q u a l i f i e d as an e x p e r t b y k n o w l e d g e , skill, e x p e r i e n c e , t r a i n i n g , o r e d u c a t i o n m a y t e s t i f y t h e r e t o in the form o f an o p i n i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , i f ( l ) the t e s t i m o n y is b a s e d u p o n s u f f i c i e n t facts o r data, (2) the t e s t i m o n y is the p r o d u c t o f reliable p r i n c i p l e s and m e t h o d s , and (3) the w i t n e s s has applied the principles and m e t h o d s r e l i a b l y to the facts o f the case. T h e Eighth Circui t has v e r y recent Iy c o m m e n t e d o n the a d m i s s i o n o f "lay o p i n i o n " t e s t i m o n y u n d e r Rule 701. See United States v. Smith, 591 F . 3 d 974 (8th Cir. 2010). "Personal k n o w l e d g e o r perceptions b a s e d o n e x p e r i e n c e is sufficient f o u n d a t i o n for lay testimony." ld. at 982 (citations 11 omitted, punctuation altered). A d d i t i o n a l l y , " p e r c e p t i o n s b a s e d on i n d u s t r y e x p e r i e n c e a r e a sufficient foundation for lay o p i n i o n testimony. " (citations o m i t t e d , e m p h a s i s in original). A lay witnesses's o p i n i o n m u s t not b e b a s e d o n s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l , o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d k n o w l e d g e - - s u c h testimony is properly within the s c o p e o f the rule g o v e r n i n g expert t e s t i m o n y ( R u l e 702). Id. T h e inquiry is properly analyzed on a c a s e - b y case basis, e x a m i n i n g b o t h t h e witness and the opinion. Id. T h e advisory c o m m i t t e e notes to Rule 701 i n d i c a t e t h e rules w e r e a m e n d e d in 2 0 0 0 in an effort to e l i m i n a t e the risk that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702 will b e evaded trough the s i m p l e e x p e d i e n t o f proffering an e x p e r t in lay w i t n e s s clothing. Fed. R. Evid. 701 C o m m i t t e e notes to 2 0 0 0 A m e n d m e n t s . T h e a m e n d m e n t s served a dual purpose: First, to ensure that e v i d e n c e qualifying as expert t e s t i m o n y under R u l e 702 will n o t e v a d e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y s c r u t i n y m a n d a t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s decision in Daubert v. Merrell D o w Parms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 5 8 7 - 8 8 , 1 1 3 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and second, to provide a s s u r a n c e that the parties will not use Rule 701 to evade the witness pretrial disclosure r e q u i r e m e n t s o fFed. R. Civ. P.26. M. 0. CH.A. Society v. City o f Buffalo, 2008 W L 4412093 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2008) (citations omitted, p u n c t u a t i o n altered). T h e M . o . CH.A C o u r t noted that w h i l e it is s o m e t i m e s difficult to distinguish between Rule 701 t e s t i m o n y and expert testimony, "an essential difference is that Rule 701 requires direct personal k n o w l e d g e o f the factual m a t t e r at issue. O n l y t h e n does it allow introduction o f a limited degree o f o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y to help c o n v e y that information and only if t h e court finds that it would b e helpful to the trier o f fact." Id. Additional distinction b e t w e e n lay and expert testimony was m a d e in United States v. Frantz, 2004 W L 5 6 4 2 9 0 9 (C.D. Cal.). L a y o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y m o s t o f t e n t a k e s the form o f a s u m m a r y o f first h a n d observations . . . it is admissible o n l y to help the j u r y o r the court to understand the facts about w h i c h the witness is testifying and not to p r o v i d e specialized explanations o r interpretations that an untrained layman could not m a k e i f p e r c e i v i n g the s a m e acts o r events. Id. at * 12. See also, United States v. Espino, 317 F . 3 d 788, 797 (8th Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) (Fed. R. Evid. 701 a l l o w s lay o p i n i o n b a s e d o n w i t n e s s ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f e v e n t s ) . 12 The statements in K n o d e ' s affidavit do n o t p u r p o r t to a p p l y s p e c i a l i z e d o r technical k n o w l e d g e . K n o d e e n f o r c e s a p o l i c y t h a t p r o h i b i t s p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t b e t w e e n i n m a t e s and t h e i r v i s i t o r s e x c e p t h o l d i n g h a n d s and a b r i e f k i s s / e m b r a c e a t t h e b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d o f a v i s i t . T h e inmates' visit m a y b e t e n n i n a t e d i f the i n m a t e and his v i s i t o r e n g a g e in "excessive" physical contact. K n o d e reported his o b s e r v a t i o n s o f P l a i n t i f f s interaction with P l a i n t i f f s visitors c o m p a r e d to the s t a n d a r d s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p o l i c y and m e m o r a n d u m . H i s t e s t i m o n y f a l l s w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f a l a y o p i n i o n p u r s u a n t to Fed. R. Evid. 701. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to S t r i k e K n o d e ' s A f f i d a v i t o n the ground that it is i m p r o p e r e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y is D E N I E D . P l a i n t i f f s final o b j e c t i o n to Knode's A f f i d a v i t is that the i n f o n n a t i o n it c o n t a i n s is r e d u n d a n t and i m p e r t i n e n t . P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t b e c a u s e h i s C o m p l a i n t a l r e a d y e x p l a i n s K n o d e ' s j o b d u t i e s and t h e p l a c e m e n t o f v i d e o c a m e r a s , t h e s a m e i n f o n n a t i o n s h o u l d b e s t r i c k e n f r o m K n o d e ' s Affidavit. T h e D e f e n d a n t s are entitled to lay the f o u n d a t i o n for the b a s i s o f the facts stated in their affiant's declarations. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to S t r i k e K n o d e ' s A f f i d a v i t o n the g r o u n d it c o n t a i n s redundant and i m p e r t i n e n t i n f o n n a t i o n is D E N I E D . B e c a u s e Knode's Affidavit is not b a s e d o n i m p r o p e r p o l i c i e s , d o e s not c o n t a i n i m p r o p e r expert testimony, and d o e s not c o n t a i n r e d u n d a n t o r i m p e r t i n e n t i n f o n n a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike Knode's A f f i d a v i t (Doc. 103) is D E N I E D in its entirety. 7. M o t i o n to S t r i k e EX A f r o m A f f i d a v i t o f D o u g L o e n (Doc. 105) D e f e n d a n t s filed Loen's A f f i d a v i t (Doc. 86) in s u p p o r t o f their S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t motion. Attached as E X A to Loen's A f f i d a v i t is a c o p y o f L o e n ' s letter to P l a i n t i f f d a t e d N o v e m b e r 9, 2009. T h e l e t t e r e x p l a i n s t h a t b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f has n a m e d t h e I n m a t e L e g a l O f f i c e a t t o r n e y a n d p a r a l e g a l as Defendants in his lawsuit, a c o n f l i c t o f interest exists and they c a n no l o n g e r assist him. Loen's letter states, "A b a c k u p Legal A s s i s t a n c e A t t o r n e y is a v a i l a b l e to a s s i s t you w i t h y o u r legal needs for research, habeas corpus o r 1983 actions. T h e attorneys (sic) n a m e and a d d r e s s are: . . . " P l a i n t i f f interpreted the letter to say that the b a c k u p a t t o r n e y " h a d b e e n a p p o i n t e d to assist 13 him in matters unrelated to this action." P l a i n t i f f therefore m o v e s to strike E X A from Loen's affidavit as "self-serving and irrelevant to this action." T h e D e f e n d a n t s filed a B r i e f in O p p o s i t i o n to the Motion (Doc. 110). T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t "the f u n d a m e n t a l constitutional right o f access to the courts r e q u i r e s p r i s o n authorities to assist inmates in the p r e p a r a t i o n a n d f i l i n g o f m e a n i n g f u l legal p a p e r s b y p r o v i d i n g p r i s o n e r s w i t h a d e q u a t e l a w l i b r a r i e s o r adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." B o u n d s v. Smith, 430 U.S. 8 1 7 , 8 2 8 , 9 7 S.Ct. 1491, 1 4 9 8 , 5 2 L.Ed.2d 72 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( e m p h a s i s added). " [ C ] o n s i s t e n t w i t h the constitutional right asserted by the plaintiff, namely the right o f m e a n i n g f u l access to the courts, the term 'adequate' as used in B o u n d s to m o d i f y 'assistance from persons trained in the law' refers not to the effectiveness o f representation, b u t to the adequacy o f the prisoner's access to his o r h e r court-appointed counsel o r other law-trained assistant." S c h r i e r v. H a l f o r d , 60 F . 3 d 1309, 1312-13 (8th Cir. 1995). T h e S u p r e m e Court later explained that " B o u n d s did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law l i b r a r y o r l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e . . . . t h e i n m a t e m u s t t h e r e f o r e go o n e s t e p f u r t h e r a n d d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e alleged shortcomings in the library o r legal assistance program hindered his efforts to p u r s u e a legal claim." L e w i s v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 3 5 1 , 1 1 6 S.Ct. 2174, 2 1 8 0 , 1 3 5 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). T h e i n m a t e m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t a n o n f r i v o l o u s legal c l a i m h a s b e e n f r u s t r a t e d o r i s b e i n g i m p e d e d . Id., 518 U.S. at 353, 116 S.Ct. at 2181 .5 T o prevail on an access to the courts claim, an i n m a t e m u s t show he has suffered an actual injury {Moore v. Plaster, 2 6 6 F.3d 928, 933 (8th Cir. 2001), and that he has suffered prejudice (Berdella v. D e l o , 972 F.2d 204, 209 (8th Cir. 1992)). I t has b e e n noted that: in order for an inmate to s h o w [inadequate legal facilities] h i n d e r e d his efforts to p u r s u e a . . . l e g a l c l a i m , he m u s t s h o w t h a t h e e n c o u n t e r e d m o r e t h a n m e r e d e l a y o r inconvenience. Indeed, a delay in b e i n g able to w o r k on one's legal action o r c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h the courts does not rise to the level o f a constitutional violation . . . . In other words, i f an i n m a t e experienced delays in p u r s u i n g a . . . claim, b u t files a c c e p t a b l e legal p l e a d i n g s w i t h i n c o u r t d e a d l i n e s , h e c a n n o t c l a i m h e w a s p r e j u d i c e d 5The Eighth C i r c u i t has stated, " L e w i s limits the s c o p e o f the right o f access to the courts to the filing o f an action attacking a sentence or c h a l l e n g i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f confinement." C o d y v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 770 (8th Cir. 2001). 14 by shortcomings in a prison's law library, b e c a u s e he has sustained no relevant actual InJury. Benjamin v. Kerik, 102 F.Supp.2d 157, 164 (S.D. N Y 2000) a f f d 2 6 4 F.3d 175 (2nd Cir. 2001). See also, Holloway v. Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390 ( 8 t h Cir. 1983) (prisoner's access to the courts claim dismissed w h e n prisoner was represented b y counsel d u r i n g t i m e in question); Brooks v. Buscher, 62 F.3d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1995) (prisons m u s t p r o v i d e access to law library or to persons trained in t h e law, b u t not both); Brinson v. McKeeman, 992 F.Supp. 897, 909 (W.D. Tex. 1997) ( " [ T ] h e state m u s t furnish indigent inmates with a p e n and p a p e r to draft legal d o c u m e n t s , stamps to mail them, and adequate o p p o r t u n i t y to conduct legal research through access to a d e q u a t e law libraries or access to 'persons trained in the law' o r o t h e r persons who can p r o v i d e legal assistance. ") ( e m p h a s i s added). It appears P l a i n t i f f misunderstands the i m p o r t o f L o e n ' s letter. Loen informed P l a i n t i f f t h a t b e c a u s e the legal s t a f f at SDSP were named in P l a i n t i f f s lawsuit, they would no longer b e able to a s s i s t h i m w i t h h i s legal n e e d s ( i n c l u d i n g h i s p e n d i n g c a s e ) . S u b s t i t u t e c o u n s e l w o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e available. B o t h t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t has i n d i c a t e d , h o w e v e r , a prison's duty to provide a s t a f f attorney to a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e a p r i s o n e r w i t h access to the Courts is not the equivalent o f k e e p i n g an attorney on retainer for a private citizen. W h i l e the state has the obligation to provide an i n m a t e w i t h the capability to b r i n g actions s e e k i n g new trials, release from confinement, o r vindication o f civil rights, it "has no o b l i g a t i o n to e n a b l e the prisoners to discover grievances or to litigate effectively o n c e in court." White v. Kautzky , 4 9 4 F .3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted, emphasis in original). "In o t h e r words, Bounds does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves into litigating engines . . . " Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356, 116 S.Ct. 2182, 135 L.Ed.2d 6 0 6 (1996). Loen's letter inf or m e d P l a i n t i f f o f the boundaries o f A t t o r n e y Adams' services pursuant to Lewis. E X A to Loen's A f f i d a v i t is not s e l f - s e r v i n g o r irrelevant. P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to Strike EX A to Loen's Affidavit (Doc. 105) is DENIED. 8. Second Motion to Compel (Doc. 109) P l a i n t i f f m o v e s to compel discovery. H e seeks five categories o f information. First, P l a i n t i f f requests an a n s w e r to his Interrogatory N o . 1 (Second Set) w h e r e i n P l a i n t i f f inquires h o w long the 15 SDSP maintains copies o f video surveillance tapes. T h e D e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t e d , c l a i m i n g the interrogatory seeks information which is "confidential and cannot b e disclosed to inmates for reasons o f safety, o r d e r a n d s e c u r i t y . . . " T h e C o u r t h a s a l r e a d y o r d e r e d a n y s u r v e i l l a n c e v i d e o s w h i c h depict conduct b y P l a i n t i f f and/or his m o t h e r which Defendants claim inappropriate b e produced for in camera review b y the Court. P l a i n t i f f s Motion is G R A N T E D in p a r t as to Interrogatory No. I (Second Set) to the extent that w h a t e v e r video surveillance remains shall b e produced in camera within ten days o f this Order. T h e Motion is otherwise DENIED as to Interrogatory N o . 1 (Second Set). Next, P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel a more complete response to Interrogatory N o . 2 (Second Set). This interrogatory requests information about who within the prison system was m a d e aware o f r e p o r t s a l l e g i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f a n d his h a l f - s i s t e r I z a b e l a . T h e C o u r t has reviewed Defendants' response to this Interrogatory and finds it is sufficient. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory N o . 2 (Second Set) is DENIED. P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 4 (Second Set) requesting information about the credentials o f Laura May, the STOP coordinator at SDSP. Defendants objected to this request as irrelevant and not likely to lead to the discovery o f admissible evidence. P l a i n t i f f asserts he should b e allowed to discover Ms. May's qualifications b e c a u s e she reviewed a video tape and found it inconclusive. T h e issue in this case is w h e t h e r the visit room policy was violated, not whether a sex offense occurred. T h e standard o f behavior for the visit room is different than for determining whether child abuse and/or a sex offense has b e e n committed. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory N o . 4 is DENIED. P l a i n t i f f seeks to compel production o f documents in response to his R e q u e s t for Production Nos. I , 3 and 4 (First Set) (informational reports which h e claims exist b u t the Defendants claim do not exist). This subject has already been addressed above in P l a i n t i f f s First Motion to Compel. T h e r u l i n g r e m a i n s t h e same. Plaintiffseeks to compel production o f t h e documents he requested in Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s N o . 5 ( S e c o n d S e t ) ( a c o p y o f the " p e r t i n e n t " v e r s i o n o f P o l i c y I . I . C . 3 , R e p o r t i n g A n 16 Abused o r Neglected Child. P l a i n t i f f asserts the version o f the policy provided in response to his Request for Production is the 2010 version and its revision log was an inadequate response. Accordingly, Defendants attached to their responsive B r i e f the versions o f the policy which were in effect from 2005 through 2009. P l a i n t i f f is now in possession o f the v a r i o u s versions o f policy I . I . C . 3 which existed from 2005 forward. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel Production o f Documents in response to Request for Production o f D o c u m e n t s N o . 5 (Second Set) is DENIED as moot. 8. P l a i n t i f f s Second Motion for Appointment o f Counsel (Doc. 111) P l a i n t i f f requests counsel b e appointed to represent him. H e cites his inability to rebut the Defendants' assertions that documents they have not produced do not exist, and his general inexperience with the law and inability to conduct legal research. T h e s e are the same general arguments and claims P l a i n t i f f m a d e in his first Motion for A p p o i n t m e n t o f Counsel. Since that time, P l a i n t i f f has s e r v e d d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s u p o n t h e D e f e n d a n t s a n d a b l y r e p r e s e n t e d h i m s e l f throughout the c o u r s e o f the multiple motions h e has filed with the Court. For the reasons already s t a t e d in t h e C o u r t ' s O r d e r ( D o c . 79) D e n y i n g P l a i n t i f f s F i r s t M o t i o n F o r A p p o i n t m e n t o f C o u n s e l P l a i n t i f f s Motion is DENIED. C O N C L U S I O N AND O R D E R For the reasons explained above, it is hereby O R D E R E D : 1. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike LilU1eweber's Affidavit (Doc. 89) is DENIED; 2. P l a i n t i f f s Motion for an Expedited Ruling (Doc. 91) is DENIED as moot; 3. P l a i n t i f f s Motions for Additional T i m e (Docs. 93 and 102) are G R A N T E D in part as follows: P l a i n t i f f shall have until N o v e m b e r 15, 2 0 1 0 to respond to Defendants' Motion for S u m m a r y Judgment; the balance o f the motions are DENIED. P l a i n t i f f s Third Motion for Additional T i m e (Doc. 108) is DENIED as moot; 4. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Compel (Doc. 94) is G R A N T E D in part and D E N I E D in part as follows: T h e motion is DENIED as to P l a i n t i f f s Motion to C o m p e l response to Request for Production o f Documents N o . 1 . T h e motion is G R A N T E D in part as to P l a i n t i f f s request 17 for production o f video tapes; h o w e v e r the video tapes which are r e s p o n s i v e to Plaintiff's Interrogatory N o . 1 shall b e provided to the C o u r t for in camera r e v i e w not later than 10 days after the date o f this Order. Plaintiff's M o t i o n to C o m p e l duty rosters is DENIED; 5. Plaintiff's M o t i o n to Strike to Affidavit o f Rebecca W e a v e r (Doc. 100) is DENIED; 6. Plaintiff's M o t i o n to Strike the A f f i d a v i t o f Stanley K n o d e (Doc. 103) is DENIED; 7. Plaintiff's M o t i o n to Strike E X A from the A f f i d a v i t o f D o u g Loen (Doc. 105) is DENIED; 8. Plaintiff's Second M o t i o n to Compel (Doc. 109) is G R A N T E D in part and D E N I E D in part as follows: the m o t i o n is G R A N T E D as to the request for p r o d u c t i o n o f the video tape depicting i n a p p r o p r i a t e behavior. Said video(s) shall b e p r o d u c e d within 10 days o f this Order for in camera review by the Court. T h e b a l a n c e o f the m o t i o n is DENIED. 9. Plaintiff's Second M o t i o n for A p p o i n t m e n t o f Counsel (Doc. 111) is D E N I E D . D a t e d this ~ d a y o f S e p t e m b e r , 2010. BY THE COURT: 18

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?