Opinion
5:22-CV-00177-CAR-CHW
06-13-2023
FRANK GILLIS, Plaintiff, v. LT. SALDANA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel (Doc. 26) and a declaration in support (Doc. 27), in which Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce camera footage from April 21, 2021, stemming from four separate sources. (Doc. 26, p. 1). These specific requests for camera footage were also listed in Plaintiff's previous motion to compel (Doc. 18), which the Court dismissed as premature because the discovery period was extended and Defendants indicated that supplemental responses were forthcoming. (Doc. 21, 22). The Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's motion to compel so that the Court could determine what, if anything, had been provided to Plaintiff through supplemental discovery. (Doc. 29).
In their response, Defendants explain their repeated efforts to locate any video responsive to Plaintiff's request and have provided their responses as submitted to Plaintiff during discovery. (Doc. 30). Defendants state in their response that “the video system in place at MSP retains video for 20 to 30 days before it is automatically overwritten.” (Doc. 30, p. 4). It appears that Defendants have taken reasonable steps to seek out and produce the requested video and finding none, have appropriately responded to the requests. Therefore, at this time, there is no basis to compel further discovery as requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED.
SO ORDERED,