United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.
an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
("SOCF") proceeding pro se, brings this prisoner
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his constitutional rights by defendants. This
matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion to compel
(Doc. 19) and plaintiffs subsequent motions for a status
update on his motion to compel (Docs. 22, 29) and motion to
produce video recordings (Doc. 35), defendants' response
in opposition (Doc. 20), and plaintiffs reply memoranda
(Docs. 21, 22).
filed his motion to compel discovery on November 2, 2017.
(Doc. 19). In the motion to compel, plaintiff asks the Court
to compel defendants to produce the following: (1) medical
protocol B-51 health guidelines for inmates; (2) a medical
examination report for May 2, 2016; and (3) DVR camera
footage for the K-2 cell 33 showing he was escorted to the
J-2 cell 35 and showing when the nurse arrived from 9:50 AM
to 10:50 AM. (Id.). Plaintiff certifies that he has
attempted to confer with counsel for defendants, Assistant
Attorney General George Horvath, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a), in a letter dated October 19, 2017. (Id. at
November 20, 2017, defendants filed a response in opposition,
asserting that an order compelling discovery was not
warranted at that time. (Doc. 20 at 1). Defendants
represented that they provided plaintiff with the data and
documents that he requested. (Id. at 2). With regard
to the requested video footage, defendants represented that
plaintiff could not watch the video footage under special
watch conditions for security reasons. (Id. at 1).
Defendants indicated that they would provide the Court with a
status update regarding plaintiffs ability to view the
footage. (Id. at 2). In reply, plaintiff admitted
that he reviewed the video footage on December 1, 2017. (Doc.
22 at 1). Plaintiff asserted that he was still in need of a
ruling on his motion to compel because the camera footage did
not show the whole use of force incident in the K-2 housing
unit. (Id.). Plaintiff asserted that the camera
footage did not show "[t]he use of force C/O Combs claim
[sic] he used on me once I arrived in J-2 as stated in his
use of force incident report." (Id.). The Court
then ordered defendants to respond to plaintiffs reply
memorandum within twenty days. (Doc. 24).
December 21, 2017, defendants submitted a status report
averring that they complied with plaintiffs discovery
requests. (Doc. 27). Defendants stated that plaintiff had
reviewed the use of force video footage. (Id. at 1).
Defendants also attached an incident report completed by
Correction Officer Combs and explained that the incident
report did not mention any use of force occurring in the J-2
block, in contrast to plaintiffs assertion in his reply
memorandum. (Id. at 2) (citing Doc. 27-1).
Defendants also attached a medical report of the incident
from May 2, 2016. (Id.). Defendants also maintained
that plaintiffs complaint made no mention of a use of force
in the J-2 unit and no video footage of this alleged incident
exists because no use of force was reported in that area.
December 22, 2017, plaintiff filed his "motion status
update and supplemental motion to compel." (Doc. 29).
Plaintiff admits that he reviewed the video footage on
December 1, 2017, but contends:
the color of the camera footage was distorted it was black
and white and not the usually [sic] color of other camera
footages I view even one I viewed in a 2015 incident, so This
camera footage was manipulated in a way where it was made
Black and white in color so that a clear view of defendants
malicious actions want [sic] be clearly captured.
December 28, 2017, defendants submitted a second status
report in response to plaintiffs motion for a status update.
(Doc. 34). Defendants maintain that although the video
footage was in black and white, there is no basis for
plaintiffs assertion that the video was manipulated in any
manner. (Id. at 1). Defendants reassert many
arguments from their December 21, 2017 status report,
including that any alleged use of force in the J-2
segregation unit was not mentioned in plaintiffs complaint
and no video footage of it exists because there is no record
of use of force occurring in the J-2 segregation unit.
(Id. at 2-4). Defendants further represent that they
provided plaintiff with a comprehensive response to his first
and second request for production of documents on October 31,
2017, which included health examination guidelines, use
offeree reports, incident reports, medical exam reports,
photographs of plaintiff following the OC spray incident, and
grievance with disposition documents. (Id. at 3).
state that they sent plaintiff these discovery responses
January 10, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for an order
compelling defendants to produce the video footage. (Doc.
35). Plaintiff asks the Court to compel defendants to produce
"(1) the entire moving footage with no skippage [sic],
(2) to insure that none of the evidence is skipped, deleted,