United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER DISCUSSING MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION TO
PRESERVE EVIDENCE
TANYA
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Plaintiff
Raymond Pruitt has filed a motion to compel the production of
certain materials he has requested in discovery. He has also
filed a motion to preserve evidence that is the subject of
his motion to compel. Specifically, in his motion to compel,
he seeks the production of “grievance complaints or
other documents received, ” and “TOPIC:
Operations, Institution, Safety, Sanitation, Environmental
Conditions (Bldg/Range/Bed I-H-U J-unit and I unit Dates
2015-2016-2017-2018 documents created in response to such
documents since January 1, 2015.” He also seeks certain
video from December 2017 and January 2018. For the reasons
that follow, Mr. Pruitt's motion to compel is granted in
part and denied in part and his motion to preserve evidence
is granted.
A.
Discovery Standards
District
courts have broad discretion in matters relating to
discovery. See Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Packman v.
Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646-47 (7th Cir.
2001)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) sets the
standard for the scope of general discovery, providing that
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,
not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of
any party...For good cause, the court may order discovery of
any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is relevant
if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Id.
A
defendant has a duty to preserve evidence where the defendant
“knew, or should have known, that litigation was
imminent.” Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating
L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2008). The scope of
the duty to preserve is broad and includes evidence the
defendant should have reasonably foreseen would be relevant
to a potential claim or action. Domanus v. Lewicki,
284 F.R.D. 379, 386 (N.D. Ill. 2012). The duty attaches when
the plaintiff informs the defendant of his or her potential
claim. See Trask-Morton, 534 F.3d at 681
(finding the duty to preserve attached when Motel 6 received
a demand letter from plaintiff's attorney). Here, the
duty attached, at the latest, when the defendants received
notice of Plaintiff's Charge on March 7, 2013.
B.
Grievance Records
The
defendants state that Mr. Pruitt's request for grievance
records is confusing and ambiguous because it does not state
what Pruitt means by “grievance complaints or other
documents received” and “Topic: Operations,
Institution-Safety, Sanitation, Environmental
Conditions.” The defendants conclude that it is
impossible to search for the information Pruitt requests
because of the confusing nature of the request.
Based
on the Court's review of the discovery request and the
defendants' response, the motion to compel is
granted to the extent that the
defendants shall produce no later than April 30,
2019, any grievances, requests for interview, or
other complaints filed by any inmate at the Plainfield
Correctional Facility related to environmental conditions or
sanitation, including allegations of mold infestation, within
that facility, any investigation of said complaints, and any
responses provided regarding those complaints between
2015-2018. The motion to preserve evidence is
granted to the extent that the defendants
shall not destroy any such records.
The
Court further notes that discovery is not yet closed.
Therefore, Mr. Pruitt may, if he chooses, submit further
discovery requests regarding this information. He will also
be permitted a reasonable time to follow up on any response
received from the defendants.
C.
Video
In his
third request for production, Mr. Pruitt requested certain
video from December 2017 and January 2018. He alleges that
this video shows various individuals looking at black mold,
talking about black mold, and locking cell doors. The
defendants responded to this request by stating that they
were not in possession of any documents or items responsive
to the request. The defendants are, of course, correct that
they cannot be compelled to produce video that does not
exist. Mr. Pruitt's motion to compel the video is
therefore denied for the present.
However,
the defendants have not satisfactorily explained the methods
they undertook to ensure that this video does not exist.
Accordingly, the defendants shall have through April
15, 2019, in which to file a notice with the Court
describing what efforts they made to identify and preserve
video evidence of the incidents described in Mr. Pruitt's
discovery request, when they first made those efforts, and
how they concluded that no video of the incident exists. If
video evidence was destroyed, the defendant shall state when
the video evidence was destroyed and how they made this
determination. The Court may revisit the plaintiff's
motion to compel and motion to preserve based on the
defendants' response to these directions.
D.
Conclusion
As
explained above, the motion to compel, dkt. [86], is
granted in part and denied in part.
The defendants shall produce no later than April 30,
2019, any grievances, requests for interview, or
other complaints filed by any inmate at the Plainfield
Correctional Facility related to environmental conditions,
including allegations regarding the presence of mold, or
sanitation within that facility, any investigation of said
complaints, and any responses provided regarding those
complaints between 2015-2018. Additionally, the defendants
shall have through April 15, 2019, in which
to file a notice with the Court describing what efforts they
made to identify and preserve video evidence of the incidents
described in Mr. Pruitt's ...