United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.
before the court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel
discovery. (Docs. #30, #31 and #38). Defendants filed
responses to the motions. (Docs. #35, #36, and #46).
Plaintiff filed a reply to two of the responses. (Doc. #45).
Motion to Compel
filed his first Motion to Compel Discovery on December 21,
2015. (Doc.#30). In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling the production of certain documents. Specifically,
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to produce
the following documents: (a) (SMU) Special Management Unit
B-Dorm log book and Plaintiff cell charts B-dorm cell B-Y-3
from October 3, 2013 to October 7, 2013; (b) copies of policy
OP-22-01, OP-22-14, OP-22.12, and OP-21-09; and (c)
Plaintiff’s complete medical record in SCDC. (Doc.
#30). Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the relevant
portions of the discovery material with the motion in
violation of Local Civil Rule 7, D.S.C.
filed a response asserting that they have timely responded to
Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents
and interrogatories. Further, Defendants assert Plaintiff
failed to state in his motion any support for why
Defendants’ objections or responses to his discovery
requests were improper or incorrect.
request, Plaintiff seeks copies of log books and cell charts
from October 3 to October 7, 2013. Plaintiff may discover
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to his claim . . . .
Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R.Civ.P. This alleged incident occurred
on October 3, 2013. While the court can speculate as to what
this information may show, Plaintiff fails to set forth his
reasoning as to why this information is relevant to his
Plaintiff’s motion with regard to the log books is
DENIED. See Id.; Local Civil Rule 7, D.S.C.
requests that Defendants be ordered to produce copies of SCDC
policies OP-22.01, OP-22.14, OP-22.12, and OP-21.09.
Defendants responded to the motion asserting that while they
did not provide copies of policies OP-22.14, OP-22.12, and
OP-21.09, they did assist Plaintiff by “Providing the
name of the corresponding policy and by informing Plaintiff
that these policies were available in the law library.”
motion to compel with regard to SCDC Policies OP-22.14,
OP-22.12, and OP-21.09 is granted to the exent Defendants are
ordered to make the non-restricted policies available to
Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
Policy OP-22.01, Defendants object arguing that it is a
“restricted” SCDC policy titled “Use of
Force.” Defendants submitted the affidavit of Colie L.
Rushton, Director of Security for SCDC and oversees the
security for all of the correctional institutions in the
State. (Rushton affidavit, Doc. #35-1). Rushton asserts,
among other things, that the SCDC “Use of Force”
policy is classified as restricted as it addresses every
aspect of the types of force utilized within SCDC including
the use of chemical munitions about which the Plaintiff
complains in this case. Id. He asserts that if the
“Use of Force” policy was provided to an inmate,
the safety and welfare of every SCDC employee would be in
jeopardy as it provides the minutest specifics as to the
force continuum to include identifying the responsive levels
of control resulting from various levels of resistence from
inmates. Id. Additionally, Rushton attests that the
“Use of Force” policy includes information on the
carrying of firearms and if inmates knew when officers would
be armed, it would threaten the life and security of every
institution, the public and the safety of other inmates.
Id. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s prior
conviction for armed robbery and his disciplinaries for
threatening to inflict harm on an SCDC employee and fighting
another inmate further justifies their objection. (Doc. #35).
Also, Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983. He fails to state why this policy is relevant to
his constitutional claim. Therefore, this portion of his
motion is DENIED. See Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.
First Set of Requests for Production of Documents requested
Plaintiff’s medical records from the beginning of his
incarceration within the SCDC. In response to the motion to
compel, Defendants assert that they obtained
Plaintiff’s medical records and provided Plaintiff with
all of the records received from the SCDC. Defendants
attached the affidavit of Kathy Hill, Director of Health
Information Resources with the South Carolina Department of
Corrections. As Director, Hill attests that she attached true
and accurate copies of Plaintiff’s medical records
under her ...