United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate incarcerated at Hancock State Prison in Sparta,
Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events alleged to have occurred
at Telfair State Prison in Helena, Georgia. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion
for Sanctions. (Doc. nos. 135, 136.)
asserts Eighth Amendment claims for failure to protect
against Defendants Danforth, Wilcox, Zanders, McCloud,
Jordan-Thomas, Taylor, Bell, and John Doe, Eighth Amendment
claims for denial of medical care against Defendants Cravey
and Dr. Chaney, a First Amendment retaliatory transfer claim
against Defendant Danforth, and Fourteenth Amendment Claims
for administrative segregation without a hearing against
Defendants Danforth, Zanders, and McCloud. (See doc.
no. 43.) On August 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed his first motion
to compel, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part. (Doc. nos. 112, 125.) The Court ordered Defendants to
supplement their discovery responses within fourteen days of
its November 15, 2017 Order. (Doc. no. 125.)
filed his second motion to compel and a motion for sanctions
on January 5, 2018. (Doc. nos. 135, 136.) Plaintiff seeks
production of documentary evidence in response to six
discovery requests, and asks the Court to sanction Defendants
for failure to produce the requested evidence sooner.
(Id.) He argues he has repeatedly conferred with
defense counsel to no avail, and Defendants have
“willfully acted with conscious indifference” to
the Court's Order compelling discovery. (Id.)
Defendants contend they have produced all documents required
by the Court's November 15th Order. (Doc. nos. 138, 139.)
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), “Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense . . . . Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
strongly favor full discovery whenever possible, Republic
of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, 1189 (11th Cir.
2013), and “[w]hen there is a doubt over relevancy, the
court should still permit discovery, ” Coker v.
Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682, 685 (M.D. Ala. 1998).
However, “the Court obviously cannot compel production
of documents that do not exist” and “is generally
entitled to rely on representations made in discovery
requests and responses.” Hunter v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., No. CV 314-035, 2015 WL 5042245, at *2 (S.D. Ga.
Aug. 26, 2015) (internal citations omitted).
discovery motion must “include the specific ground for
the motion or objection” and “may not be made
generally.” Loc. R. 26.5(b)-(c). Plaintiff's motion
does not satisfy this requirement because of its
generalities. Nevertheless, despite this deficiency, the
Court addresses each of Plaintiff's disputed requests on
the merits in turn below.
1. Request for defendant Jordan-Thomas to produce the
video footage from the state camera #329472 that she operated
during this incident on July 15, 2013. (See doc. no. 113-1,
Ex. 1. Interrogatory no. 6(b) p. 37).
2. Request for defendant Bell to produce the video
footage from the state camera #329502 that he operated during
this incident on July 15, 2013. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1.
Interrogatory no. 6(b) p. 41).
3. Request for defendants Danforth, et al. to produce
copies of all audio and video recordings/footage concerning
incident on July 15, 2013. (See doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1.
Interrogatory no. 9 p. 12 and Interrogatory no. 10 p.
noted in the Court's November 15th Order, Defendants
produced five videos in response to Plaintiff's requests.
(Doc. no. 124, pp. 8, 11.) Moreover, Defendants aver they
“have produced all relevant surveillance footage of
Plaintiff in their possession, custody, and control.
Defendants are not in possession, custody, or control of
additional surveillance footage of Plaintiff beyond what was
already provided to him.” (Doc. no. 138, p. 4.) The
Court is entitled to rely on Defendants' representations,
and it cannot compel Defendants to produce video recordings
that do not exist. See Hunter, 2015 WL 5042245, at
*2 (“[T]he Court obviously cannot compel production of
documents that do not exist [and] is generally entitled to
rely on representations made in discovery requests and
responses.”) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to
compel as to Request Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
4. Request for defendant Wilcox to produce diagrams that
depicts cafeteria, recreation yard, the area in front of D
and E Buildings, E-Building quietroom, and Administrative
Segregation cell E-2 #123 which are all relevant scenes. (See
doc. no. 113-1, Ex. 1. ...