Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dawson v. Bush

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

July 9, 2014

William Douglas Dawson, Jr., #248371, Plaintiff,
v.
Ass. Warden Denis Bush; Warden Larry Cartledge; Ass. Warden Florence Mauney, Defendants.

ORDER

THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (doc. #79). Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. #86).

In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of certain documents. Plaintiff's Request for Production of documents to Defendants and their responses are as follows:

Request No. 1:[1] Copies of Investigations on all Defendants.
Response: Objection. This Request is overbroad. The Defendants would further object on the grounds that the requested information is outside the scope of discovery in that it does not relate to the issues raised in the Complaint, nor is it likely to lead to relevant information. In addition, any information of this type would raise security and privacy issues. Subject to those objections, there was no use of force involving the Plaintiff during the time of the allegations of the Complaint.

(Doc. #86-1).

In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff asserts that since he is a pro se Plaintiff, he has "a right to this information to help litigate this civil action." (Doc. # 79 at 2).

Plaintiff's RFP 1 is overly broad. Defendants should, nonetheless, respond to a request for documents to the extent it is not objectionable. See Author's Commentary to Rule 34, Fed.Civ.R. Handbook (2014). In compliance, Defendants responded there is "no investigative materials related in any way to the Plaintiff or the allegations raised in his complaint." Defendants' response is sufficient and Plaintiff fails to show otherwise. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel regarding RFP1 is denied.

Request No. 2: Use of force reports on each Defendant while employment with SCDC.
Response: Objection. This request is overbroad. The Defendants would further object on the grounds that the requested information is outside the scope of discovery in that it does not relate to the issues raised in the Complaint, nor is it likely to lead to relevant information. In addition, any information of this type would raise security and privacy issues. Subject to those objections, there was no use of force involving the Plaintiff during the time of the allegations of the Complaint.

(Doc. #86-1).

Defendants have objected generally that the request is overbroad and specifically that no documents exist that are responsive to the request. Again, the RFP 2 is overbroad and Defendants have provided a sufficient response. Plaintiff fails to show otherwise.[2] Thus, the motion is denied as to RFP2.

Request No. 4: Video (from security cameras) of Perry Correctional institutional yard on 7-30-12 from 1:20 p.m. through 2:20 p.m.
Response: None exists. Security cameras did not record.

(Doc. #86-1).

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff asserts that he needs this video to show and prove that Defendant Bush endangered Plaintiff's life by walking Plaintiff pass other inmates, while the Plaintiff was in full restraints. Defendants have responded that the cameras in that area do not record and, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.