Stanley v. Gray et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ERIC ROMAR STANLEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:22-cv-04036
CORPORAL GREY; OFFICER SMITH;
OFFICER MARTINEZ; CAPTIAN ADAMS;
and WARDEN WALKER 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, Eric Romar Stanley, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on April 27, 2022.
(ECF No. 1). 	Plaintiff was granted Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on the same day. 	(ECF
No. 3). 	Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 16, 2022. 	(ECF No. 7). 	Before the Court
is Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel. 	(ECF No. 26). 	Defendants have responded. 	(ECF No. 28).
I. 	BACKGROUND
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, that while incarcerated in the Miller County
Detention Center (“MCDC”), on March 25, 2022, his constitutional rights were violated when
Defendants stripped him and forced him into a one man “psych cell” with a mentally ill inmate.
(ECF No. 7). 	On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel alleging Defendants have
failed to answer his First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, failed
to produce all of the videos recorded on March 25, 2022 (the date of alleged incident); failed to
produce video from additional days; and “Defendants have not produced all the documents . . .
there [are] still grievance, photos, incident reports & videos that have not been produced.” 	(ECF
No. 26, p.2).
To his Motion, Plaintiff attached two letters of good faith conferral attempts. 	Neither
Case 4:22-cv-04036-SOH Document 37 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
letter indicate what date Plaintiff sent them to Defendants.0F
1 	The first letter requests: (1) a list of
specific grievances by number and date; (2) incident reports by date; (3) the video of the incident;
(4) photos of the incident; (5) copy of the Prison Rape Elimination Act report regarding the incident
on March 25, 2022; and (6) a video from November 20, 2019. 	(ECF No. 26, pp. 3-4). 	The
second letter requests: (1) all of the documents previously requested in the first letter; (2) video
footage of incidents occurring on March 12, 2022, March 20, 2022, and April 11, 2021; and (3)
responses to his First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and First
Set of Request for Admissions. 	(ECF No. 26, pp. 3-5).
Additionally, Plaintiff attached to his Motion: 	(1) Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents and Request for Production of Documents; (2)
Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions; (3) Plaintiff’s Answers to Interrogatories and
Request for Production. 	(ECF No. 26, pp. 6-15).
Defendants filed a Response arguing Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is moot because they
have produced the requested information, and it should be denied because Plaintiff failed to confer
in good faith prior to filing the Motion. 	(ECF No. 28).
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
The scope of discovery in a civil case is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,
which provides in part:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
1 The Court notes, even though both of these letters are signed by Plaintiff at the bottom of the
document and dated January 1, 2023, the Court believes this was the date Plaintiff sent the
Motion to Compel for filing to the Court, not the date Plaintiff sent the letters to Defendants.
Case 4:22-cv-04036-SOH Document 37 Filed 03/07/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant 	information, 	the 	parties’ 	resources, 	the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 	Information
within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that:
i.The discovery sought is unreasonable, cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive;
ii.The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information
by discovery in the action; or
iii.The proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 	Further, under rule 26(c), “[t]he Court may, for good cause, issue an
order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden
or expense.” 	Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).
The burden is generally on the party resisting discovery to show why discovery should be
limited. 	Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Fine Home Managers, Inc., 2010 WL 2990118, at *1 (E.D. Mo.
July 27, 2010). 	In carrying this burden, the objecting party cannot rely on mere statements and
conclusions but must specifically show how the objected-to disclosures would be irrelevant or
overly burdensome, overly broad, or oppressive. 	See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Comm.
Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511-12 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (collecting cases).
Under Rule 26(c)(1), a party “may move for a protective order in the court where the
action is pending” and “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” 	Such an order may
forbid the disclosure or discovery. 	See, Rule 26(c)(1)(A).
Case 4:22-cv-04036-SOH Document 37 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
III. 	DISCUSSION
In his Motion to Compel (ECF No. 26), Plaintiff requests the Court compel Defendants to
answer his First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Production, Requests for Admissions, and to
produce videos from all dates requested. 	From Plaintiff’s arguments in his Motion, it would
appear Defendants did not offer any response to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests. 	Id. at
1-2. 	Plaintiff does not assert specific Interrogatories or Requests that have gone unanswered, and
only specifically request video from March 12, 2022, 	and April 11, 2022, and additional footage
from March 25, 2022. 	(ECF No. 26, pp. 1-2).
Defendants 	assert 	in 	their 	Response: 	(1) 	they 	have 	already 	answered 	Plaintiff’s
interrogatories and requests and they attached these discovery responses to their Response to the
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 28-2); or (2) the information requested does not exist. 	Specifically,
Defendants argue they produced all video that exist from March 25, 2022, and video from March
12, 2022 and April 11, 2022 no longer exist as it was not retained by the jail. 	(ECF No. 28, p. 2).
Further, Defendants argue they have answered and produced documents in response to all of
Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 	Id. 	Moreover, Defendants filed a Notice with additional
documentation produced to Plaintiff. 	(ECF No. 29). 	Plaintiff did not reply to Defendants
Response or Notice arguing this final production was insufficient, or pointing to any specific
answers to his Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, or Document Production Request that was
insufficient.
Because Plaintiff did not list specific Interrogatories or Requests that Defendants failed to
answer adequately or produce, the Court is unable to consider his Motion to Compel on any
Case 4:22-cv-04036-SOH Document 37 Filed 03/07/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
discovery matters other than the videos he requested. 	Plaintiff requested video from the dates
March 12, 2022; March 25, 2022; and April 11, 2022. 	Defendants produced video from March
25, 2022 and responded to Plaintiff’s other requests indicating video from the other dates does not
exists, and no further video on March 25, 2022 exists. 	Defendants support this Answer with an
Affidavit of the Jail Administrator explaining why no further video footage exists from those dates.
(ECF No. 28-5). 	The MCDC has a policy of recording over video every thirty (30) days unless a
hold is placed on the video footage. 	Inmates cannot place holds on videos. 	Plaintiff’s Prison
Rape Elimination Act claim triggered the hold on the March 25, 2022 video footage. 	The footage
produced of March 15, 2022 is all that exist and that ever existed. 	Id.
Federal Rule of Procedure 34 provides for the production of documents and things within
“the responding party’s possession, custody or control.” 	Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 (a)(1). 	Defendants are
not required to produce items that are not in their custody or control. 	Further, Defendants cannot
produce something that does not exist. 	The Court is satisfied with Defendants response that no
video exists from the dates of March 12, 2022 and April 11, 2022. 	Furthermore, Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint concerns incidents occurring on March 25, 2022, not March 12, 2022 or April
11, 2022. 	Plaintiff has not shown the Court how video, even if it existed, from March 12, 2022
and April 11, 2022 is relevant to his claims. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel must be
denied as the information he requests does not exist.
Case 4:22-cv-04036-SOH Document 37 Filed 03/07/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 26) DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of March 2023.
s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-04036-SOH Document 37 Filed 03/07/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>