Self, Carl et al v. Birdsill, Brittany et al

Filing 60

ORDER requiring the parties to respond to 54 Notice that plaintiff has not yet received the correct video evidence by 1/24/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor on 1/7/2025. (jls),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CARL E. SELF and DAMEN OLDS,

v.

Plaintiffs,
ORDER

WILLIAM OLSON, KELSEY BATES,
EDWARD KOLBA, BRENDAN INGENTHRON,
and BRANDA MULLER, 1

23-cv-374-wmc

Defendants.
Plaintiffs Carl Self and Damen Olds, who are representing themselves, are proceeding
on Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims, alleging that correctional staff at
New Lisbon Correctional Institution disregarded their exposure to a clogged, flooded toilet
between March 23 and 29, 2023.

During briefing on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment, dkt. 35, which is now pending before the court, plaintiffs filed a notice informing
the court that they have not received the video footage of the front and rear of the dayroom in
the C-Unit from March 23-29, 2023, which they requested in their first and third requests for
document production. Dkt. 54. They assert that this footage “would expose their version of
events even more,” particularly with respect to their claims that they spoke with each of the
defendants about their clogged toilet.
Discovery-related documents submitted by the parties show that defendants stated the
following in response to plaintiffs’ first request for production on September 11, 2024, and
second request for production on November 1, 2024:

The court has revised the caption to add defendants’ first names and correct the spelling of their
surnames.

1

Counsel for Defendants OBJECTS to this request on the ground
that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional
to the needs of the claims in this case. Subject to said objection,
the C Unit hallway video from March 25, 2023 through March
27, 2023 has been preserved and contains 48 hours of footage.
Due to the length of the video, counsel for Defendants request
that Plaintiffs specify which time periods that they would like to
view. Defendants counsel will then arrange for the litigation
coordinator to prepare that portion, and Plaintiffs may request a
time to view it.
Dkt. 44-12, at ¶ 5; dkt. 56-1, at 7.
In addition, defendants’ November response added the following paragraph:
The Institution has located additional video from March 23, 2023
to March 25, 2023 and is in the process of producing the video
to our office. Due to the length of the video, it will take a few
business days to prepare the video for production. Due to the
length of the video, counsel for Defendants request that Plaintiffs
specify which time periods that they would like to view.
Defendants counsel will then arrange for the litigation
coordinator to prepare that portion, and Plaintiffs may request a
time to view it.
Dkt. 56-1, at 7.
Defense counsel avers that plaintiffs have not contacted him to narrow the scope of the
footage or request assistance with viewing it. Although plaintiffs contend that they made
multiple requests for video footage depicting the dayroom from March 23-29, 2023, they do
not make clear whether they ever identified for defense counsel which specific hours of the
48 hours of footage is relevant to their claims. Instead, they maintain that they never received
any footage from the litigation coordinator and that the video footage of the hallway in the CUnit is irrelevant because what they need is the video footage of the front and back of the CUnit dayroom. Plaintiffs say they discussed the incorrect footage in a letter dated September
18, 2024, but never received a response. See dkt. 44-13. Plaintiffs further assert that it is now

2

too late for defendants to provide the footage because defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is fully briefed.
Without more information, it is not possible for the court to know if the hallway video
footage offered by defendants is actually the dayroom footage that plaintiffs requested, whether
the footage has discernable audio, what plaintiffs believe the footage contains that will support
their contention that defendants knew about their clogged and flooded toilet, and what specific
hours of the six-day footage should be isolated for plaintiffs’ viewing.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties have until January 24, 2025, to provide
the following information to the court:
1. Defendants shall inform the court whether the video footage they have in their
possession has audio as well as video and whether it is from the cameras located at
the front and back of the dayroom on the C-Unit, as plaintiffs requested.
2. Plaintiffs shall describe for the court what specific incidents—including dates,
approximate times, and the defendant(s) involved—they believe the video footage
will depict and how those incidents support their contention that the named
defendants consciously disregarded a risk to their health and safety.
Entered January 7, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
____________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge

3