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.

Williams v. Fox

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 11, 2018

KENT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
GUARD FOX, Defendant.

          ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

          Edward J. Lodge, United States District Judge

         Currently pending before the Court are motions to compel filed by both parties, as well as a motion for sanctions filed by Plaintiff and a motion for a protective order filed by Defendant. Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order.

         1. Defendant's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 74)

         In Defendant's Motion to Compel, Defendant seeks responses, or supplementation to responses, to several interrogatories and requests for production Defendant has propounded to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion. Therefore, Defendant's Motion will be granted.

         Within 30 days after entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall respond to, or shall supplement his responses to, the following:

• Defendant's Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, and 11.
• Defendant's Request for Production Nos. 1 through 11.

         2. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 75) and Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 79)

         In his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff seeks discovery related to the following broad categories: (1) video surveillance at the Ada County Jail; (2) Defendant's personnel file and military records; (3) information regarding the jail grievance policy and documentation related to Defendant's training; (4) the identities of inmates housed near Plaintiff at the time of the incidents at issue; and (5) “internal memos, E-mails and any written or electronic communications between all staff” regarding Plaintiff's use of the grievance process. Defendant seeks a protective order against some of this discovery.

         A. Discovery Requests Regarding Video Surveillance

         Plaintiff asks the Court to compel responses from Defendant regarding video surveillance of Plaintiff's cell that may have captured the incidents at issue in this litigation. However, Defendant stated in his response to Plaintiff's discovery requests about the video surveillance was that the surveillance was “not recorded or otherwise saved” by the jail's surveillance system and later informed Plaintiff that, to the extent that video the area outside Plaintiff's cell may have been recorded at one point-which Defendant did not know-any such recording “no longer existed in any format.” (Dkt. 76 at 4.)

         Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that Defendant erased any such video surveillance or otherwise acted in any nefarious way regarding that surveillance. That a video may have been taken and no longer exists is insufficient for the Court to conclude that Defendant destroyed or is withholding any such surveillance. It is more likely that, in the time between the incidents of which Plaintiff complains and the date he filed this action, the video (if any) was disposed of in the manner prescribed by jail policy-not because Defendant had any hand is such disposition. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to such surveillance, as set forth in Request Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the Motion, will be denied.

         Because Plaintiff is not entitled to further information regarding the surveillance system, Defendant's request for a protective order against further discovery on that topic will be granted.

         B. Defendant's Personnel Records

         i. Military Record

         Plaintiff asks for production of Defendant's military personnel record in Request No. 2 of Plaintiff's Motion. (Dkt. 75 at 5.) However, Plaintiff has not disputed Defendant's statement that Plaintiff did not make a discovery request for Defendant military records. (Dkt. 76 at 89; Dkt. 81.) Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to production of Defendant's military record.

         ii. Defendant's ...


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.